Pope Joan — Alexander Cooke

Pope Joan · Alexander Cooke

PROT.

So yourxAnnal. to 10. ad an. 853. ou. 60. Cardinall Baronius would make vsus beleeue, (I grant) but he brings no other proofe thereof then teſte meipſo. Which how euer it may go for proofe among Princes, yet is no proofe among ſcholers. And for my part without proofe, I beleeue nothing, whoſoeuer he be that ſpeakes it, eſpecially if he be a Papiſt. For asyRerum memorabilium paraleipomen. Hiſt. Abbat. Vrſpergenſ. annex a. p. 394. Sigiſmund the Emperour ſaid of Iudian the Cardinall, Legate at the Councell of Baſil, when one commended him highly to him: Tamen Romanus eſt. Yea but he is a Romaine: ſo I may ſay of any Papiſt, reporting things vnknown: yea, but he is a Papiſt. Yet be it ſo, as Baronius ſaith it is. Why may it not be true though it be deliuered with vt aſſeritur?

PAP.

Why?zHarding loco ſupra citato. Becauſe lies are commonly ſo ſoothed.

PROT.

Indeed many lies paſſe in ſuch generall termes. As for example: Men ſay,aGolden Legend in the life of S. Patricke. ſaith your Legend, that S. Patrik droue with his ſtaffe all the venimous beaſts out of Ireland: and that he obtained of the Lord, that no Iriſh man ſhould abide the coming of Antichriſt. The former of which bDial lib. 3. cap. 28.Harpsfield Cope confeſſeth to be a lie: and ſo I thinke al the generation of you Papiſts thinke of the later. Elſe, why do none of your great Maiſters alledge it to cleare your Pope from being Antichriſt? Men ſay, ſaith Nangiacus as*Chronol. lib. 3. ad an. Chriſt. 595. Genebrard reporteth: that Kentiſh-men hauehave tailes like bruite beaſts, becauſe their anceſtors mocked Auſtine the Monke when he came to preach vntounto thē. Now that this is a lie wel worthie of a whetſtone, your ſelf (I hope) wil acknowledge. Yet truth now and then is ſo deliuered. When Boniface the Martyr was demanded on a time, whether it was lawfull at the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper, to vſe a wodden chalice: it is ſaid he anſwered thus, ſaithcDe ſacris Eccl. benefic. ac Miniſt. lib. 2. cap. 4. Duaren: Olim aurei ſacerdotes ligneis vaſis, nunc lignei aureis vtuntur. In old time golden Prieſts vſed wodden chalices, now wodden Prieſts vſe golden chalices. Marke, (fertur) it is ſaid, ſaith Duaren, yetdAlciat. parerga iuris lib. 7. cap. 24. & de conſecrat. diſt. 1. c. vaſa no queſtion but he anſwered ſo. In like maner, it is written, that Pius the 2. was wont to ſay, Mariage was vponupon iuſt reaſon forbidden Prieſts, but now vponupon better reaſon to be reſtored to Prieſts.ePius 2. dixiſſe fertur ſacerdotibus magnaratione ſublatas eſſe nuptias, maiori reſtituendas videri. Platina in vita Pij. 2. Fulgoſ. de dict. &c. lib. 7. cap. 2. Of which his ſaying there is made no queſtion, as may appeare by this, that afPiſanus de Continentia. cap. 11. Ieſuite replieth onelyonly to it, That it was recanted by him, and denieth not that it was ſpoken of him. That Alexander the 3. trampled the Emperour Fredericke vnderunder his feete, and commnded one to ſay that which is in thegPſal. 91. 13. Pſalmes, Thou ſhalt walke vponupon the Lion and Aſpe, the yong Lion and the Dragon ſhalt thou tread vnderunder thy feete: ishDuaren. de ſac. Eccl. Miniſt. lib. 1. cap. 2. recorded by ſome with, vt fertur: and yetiSee To…tu…a Torti. p. 262. & the B. of Lincolns booke againſt a nameleſſe Catholick. pag. 282. they hauehave litle to ſay for themſelues, who call the truth thereof in queſtion. That merry Cardinall, who ſeeing after the death of Clemens the 4. that his fellow Cardinals called ſtill for the aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt, and yet could not agree vponupon the election of a new Pope,kOnup. Annot. in Plat. in vit. Greg. 10. cried out: Domini, diſcooperiamus tectum camerae huius, quia ſpiritus ſanctus nequit ad nos per tot tecta ingredi. My good maiſters, I pray you let vsus vntile the roofe of this roome: for I feare the holy Ghoſt cannot get to vsus thorow ſo many ſlates: is meerelylOnuph. ibid. reported vponupon election of Gregory to hauehave made theſe verſes.

Papatus munus tulit Archidiaconus vnus,

Quem patrem patrum fecit diſcordia fratrum.

Yet who doubts but he made them?mDiſput. ſuper mater. Conc. generalis, quae habetur in Faſci culo rerum expetend. impreſſ. Colon. 1535. fol. 201. b. Et in Bibl. ſanct patrū Bygnaei. to. 8. edit. Paris. 1576. Nicolas Clemangis Archdeacon of Baion in France, doth write vponupon heareſay. That when Balthaſar commonly knowne by the name of Iohn the 23. held a Councel at Rome, and cauſed, as the maner is, before the firſt Seſſion, a Maſſe to be ſaid for the aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt: preſently vponupon the Councels ſetting of themſelues downe, and Balthaſars aduancing himſelfe into his chaire of eſtate: a dreadfull Owle (which is ordinarily thought to preſage ſome euill towards) comes out of her hole, crying after her euill fauoured faſhion, and flying to the middle balk of the Church, ſtaring iuſt in Balthaſars face, to the great aſtoniſhment of Balthaſar himſelf, and all the whole Councel, ſo that he was glad to breake off for that time. Yea he writes, that at the next Seſſion ſhe appeared againe, ſtaring in the Popes face as before, and could not be feared away with flinging of ſtickes, or with whooping, till one feld her with a ſticke, and ſo killed her. Yet no man hath cauſe to doubt of the ſtory, for he had it of a truſty man, and a faithfull friend of his, who aſſured him, of his credite, that it was true. ThatoAene as Syluius hiſt. Bohem…ca, cap. 13. S. Cyril intreated the Pope, he might ſay the Morauians their ſeruice in a knowne language: and that when there was ſome ſticking at the motion, a voice was heard, as it were, from heauen, ſaying, Omnis ſpiritus laudet Dominum, & omnis lingua confiteatur ei: Let eueryevery thing that hath breath praiſe the Lord, and let eueryevery tongue confeſſe his holy name: vponupon hearing whereof, the Pope granted S. Cyril his ſuite: is but reported with, ferunt. And yet thoughpIn Enchirid. controu. cap. 19. de precibus latinèrecitandis. Coſterus in that reſpect make ſome queſtion of the truth of it,qDe diuin. ſcrip quauis lingua non legend. cap. 33. Ledeſma, andrLib. 2 de verbo Dei, cap. 16. Bellarmine receiue it for true. That the worſt Chriſtians in Italy are the Romanes: that of the Romanes, the Prieſts are the moſt wicked; and of the Prieſts, the leudeſt are made Cardinals; & of the Cardinals, the badſt choſen to be Pope; it isſSir Edw. Sands in his relation of the religion vſed in the Weſt pag. 91. written, but with aſſeritur. Yet to them that are skilled in hiſtories, and hauehave obſerued the courſe of the world at Rome, there are not many things more certaine. In Bauaria palàm ferunt, Ieſuitas dolium in Collegium ſubuexiſſe, è cuius fundo effracto, meretrix in publicas plateas prolapſa ſit, faithtHiſtoria Ieſuitici ordinis, cap. 6. Haſſen Muller. They ſay openly in Bauaria, that the Ieſuites cauſed a tub to be carried vntounto their Colledge, which breaking by the way, a wench dropt out of the one end of it, in the middeſt of the ſtreete. And why may not this be true, though it go but by report? The Papiſts beleeue as true, farre more incredible reports then this, which concerne Proteſtants. But to conclude this point. Doth not uCope dialog. 3. cap. 11. pag. 355.Harpsfield Cope auouch, that if men reiect ſtories upon this quirke, that they are related with ferunt & dicitur, they will ſoone marre all? You had beſt deuiſe a better anſwer then this, for feare that you be one of them who marre all.

PAP.

Take you no care for that. Yet in way of further anſwer to Polonus, who is taken asxNu. 27. p 397. N. D. writes) to hauehave bene the firſt relator of this fable.yN. D. Pag. 399. & 400. I ſay, there are ſo many incongruities, ſimplicities, abſurdities, varieties, and contrarieties in his verie narration of it, as it diſcouereth the whole matter to be a meere fable, and fiction indeed, and him a verie ſimple man. For he begins his narration thus: Poſt Leonem ſedit Iohannes Anglus, natione Margantinus, After Leo the 3. Iohn Engliſh, by nation a Margantine. But where this country of Margantia is, no man can tell.

PROT.

N. D. whoſe words you vſe, doth Martinus Polonus open wrong, in reporting this of him. For firſt, he ſaith not that ſhe ſate after Leo the 3. but Leo the 5. Secondly, he cals her not Margantine, but Maguntine, which is witneſſed byzAnnot. in Plat in vit. Ioh. 8. Onuphrius himſelfe, who cites his words to his beſt aduantage, that he might hauehave the rather whereat to cauill. If any blind booke hauehave Margantine, it is but the Scriueners falt, ſuch as is committed once and againe in that booke of N. D. whence this ſweete cauill is taken.aPag. 396. Where for Magdeburgians, we reade Magdebugians. For in Polonus there is an, r, too much, and in N. D. there is an, r, too few. Now where Maguntia is eueryevery can man tell, to wit, in Germany.

PAP.

bN. D pag. 400Yea but it followeth in Polonus: Quae alibi legitur fuiſſe Benedictus 3. which otherwhere is read to be Benedict the 3. So as this man ſeemeth to confound him with Benedict the 3. and conſequently aſcribeth to him the ſame time of his reigne that is aſſigned to Benedict, to wit, 2. yeares and 5. moneths. And yet preſently after he ſaith, that Benedictus was a Romane, ſonne to Prateolus, &c.

PROT.

The ſubſtance of this your anſwer is falſe, and feigned of N. D. his owne head: for in Polonus there are no ſuch words as (Quae alibi legitur fuiſſe Benedictus 3.) neither aſcribeth he to her the ſame time of reigne that is aſſigned to Benedict. For he aſcribes to Benedict 2. yeares and 5. moneths: whereas he aſcribes to Pope Ioane 2. yeares 5. moneths and 4. daies, or (as ſomecOnuph. loco citato. of you ſay) but 2. yeares, 1. monethmonth and 4. daies. N. D. might with as great reaſon charge Anaſtaſius to confound Leo the 2. and Benedict the 2. his next ſucceſſor: becauſedAnaſtaſ. de vit. Pont. in Leo. 2 & Benedict. 2. he aſcribeth to Leo the 2. the ſame time of his reigne (within 5. daies) which he aſcribes to Benedict the 2. Queſtionles,eChron. ad an. Chriſt. 94. & 103 Polonus aſcribes to Cl…mens, 9 yeares, 2. moneths, and 10. daies: and ſo he doth to his next ſucceſſour Anacletus, without difference: yet he confounds them not. Polonus aſcribes to Celeſtinus primus, 8 yeares, and 9 daies: and ſo he doth to Sixtus the 3. his next ſucceſſour, and yet confounds them not.

PAP.

fOnuph. Hard. and Bellar. locis ſupra citatis.Why, but what a fooliſh ſpeech is it of Polonus, when he ſaith, Iohn an Engliſh man, by nation of Maguntia. For Maguntia is in Germany, as you told me before. And how could ſhe being an Engliſh woman, be of Maguntia?

PROT.

You runne counter: ſhe was no Engliſh woman, neither doth Polonus ſay ſhe was: ſhe was Ioane Engliſh (as gNu. 30. pag. 400.N. D. truly tranſlated, Iohannes Anglus, in Polonus) but not Ioane, or Iohn of Englād. Engliſh was her ſir-name, ashSee before. Faſciculus Temporum obſerued; but England was not her countrey, her countrey was Maguntia, that is, Mentz. There are many who carrie the name of Scot, French, Gaſcoigne, Weſtfaling, Holland, Welch, which were not born in thoſe countries, but in ſeuerall ſhires in England. Guitmundus, who wrote againſt Berengarius, was*Guitmundus Normanus cognomento, non natione. Norman by name, but not by his countrey, ſaithiApparat. ſac. verbo Guitmundus. Poſſeuine.

PAP.

aFlorim. cap. 10. nu. 1.Such writers as liued the very time wherein this matter is pretended to hauehave fallen out, (that is to*Hoc eſt ab an. 847. ad ann. 858. ſay) with Leo the 4. and with Benedict the 3. from the yeare 847, to 858. write nothing hereof at all. Ergo, there was no ſuch matter.

PROT.

Who are theſe writers (I pray you) of whom you ſpeake?

PAP.

ThebFlorim. loco citato. firſt and chiefeſt is Rabanus Maurus, Abbor of the Monaſterie of Fulda, wherein this Pope Ioane of yours (they ſay) loſt her maiden-head. Rabanus Maurus writes nothing of her.

PROT.

Nor of any other particular Pope: doth he? Rabanus cTrithem. de ſcript. Eccl verbo. Rabanus.wrote commentaries vponupon the whole Scripture, and ſome other Treatiſes: but he wrote no hiſtorie. Though if he had, yet could he not hauehave written of this Pope Ioane, for her knauery was not diſcouered till after the yeare 855. in *Trithem. ibid.which Rabanus died. Rabanus liued not to heare of her deliuery of a child, as ſhe went in progreſſe.

PAP.

Rabanus died in the yeare 856. and not in the yeare 855. asdAnnal. to. 10. ad an. 856 nu. 26 Poſſeuin. Apparat. ſac. verbo. Rabanus. Baronius notes. Trithemius who noted out the yeare 855 for the yeare of his death, was deceiued, and ſo are you.

PROT.

Whether Trithemius was deceiued in aſſigning the yeare 855. for the yeare of Rabanus death, I meane not to ſtand arguing with you, becauſe it is all one to my purpoſe though he died in the yeare 856. For Pope Ioane was not diſcouered till after the yeare 856. And therefore ſith he died in that yeare, by Baronius and your owne confeſſion, he could not write of her.

PAP.

eFlorim. loco citato.Strabus, whoſe fellow Monke bereaued her of her maiden-head, as the tale goes: Strabus (I ſay) writes nothing of her.

PROT.

Strabus writes nothing of his fellow Monkes, who by the inſtigation of the diuell, wearied Rabanus of his Abbotſhip, through their continuall grumbling againſt him, for giuing himſelfe more to the ſtudie of Diuinitie, then to pleading about their worldly buſineſſes. Yet we reade thereof infDe ſcript. Eccleſ. verbo Rabanus. Trithemius and ingSixt. Senenſis Bibli. ſanctae, l. 4. verbo. Rabanus. & in Poſſeuin. Apparat. ſac. verbo. Rabanus. others. Wherefore it doth not follow, Strabus wrote not of Pope Ioane: Ergo there was no Pope Ioane. Eſpecially if it be conſidered, that Strabus wrote no hiſtory, but gloſſes vponupon the Bible, and liued not til Pope Ioanes dayes, but died about the yeare 840. For how could he write of that which fell out after his death? Who is your next man?

PAP.

hFlorim. p. 84.Haimo, who writ a booke of vertue and vice, writes nothing of her.

PROT.

No maruell: for he died in the yeare 834, at leaſt twentie yeares before ſhe was Pope. If Haimo had written of her, his writing had bene as ſtrange, as her deliuerie of a child.

PAP.

How proue you that Haimo died in the yeare 834? For byiAnnal. to. 10. ad an. 853. nu. 71 Baronius, it ſhould ſeeme, he died in the yeare 853.

PROT.

Though Haimo had died in the yeare 853, it helps not you in this caſe. For till after that time, this Ioane was not made Pope. But that Haimo died in the yeare 834, it is witneſſed bykDe ſcript. Eccl verbo. Haimo. Trithemius, and acknowledged bylBibl. Sāct. lib. 4. verbo. Haimo. Apparat. …acer. to. 2. verb Haim. Sixtus Senenſis, and by Poſſeuine. Wherefore go on.

PAP.

Anaſtaſius Bibliothecarius, mN. D. part 2. cap. 5. pag. 392.a man of great reputation, that liued in both theſe Popes times, andnFlorim. p. 84. was Secretary to them both, and was preſent at both their elections, and wrote the particulars there…f, writes nothing of her, but ſheweth among other points, that Leo the 4. died the 16. day before the Kalends of Auguſt, and that all the Clergie of Rome gathered together, and with one conſent did chooſe Benedict the third, &c.

PROT.

Where reade you that Anaſtaſius was Secretarie to both theſe Popes? or that he was preſent at their elections? oIn vita Ioh. 8. nu. 110. Anaſtaſi… à Iob. (v…. 8) praefectus eſt Bibliothecae S. Rom. Eccleſiae. Baron. annal. tom. 9. ad an. 787. nu. 9.Platina writing of an accident which fell out in the yeare 884, notes, that Anaſtaſius at that time was a man of good account in Rome. But neither he, nor any man elſe notes that he was Secretarie to Leo the 4. and Benedict the 3, or that he was preſent at their elections.pLib. 3. de Rom Pont. cap. 24. Bellarmine himſelfe durſt ſay no more, but that he was preſent at the election of many Popes, who either liued before or after this woman Pope. He durſt not ſay, that he was at the election of theſe, as you ſay. Againe, who told you that Leo died the 16. day before the Kalends of Auguſt? Anaſtaſius qIn vita Leonis 4. pag. 293.writes, that Leo the 4. Papa obdormiuit in domino 16. Calend. Auguſt. But that is but the 15. day before the Kalends of Auguſt, and not the 16. Thirdly, whereas to winne credit to this your Author, you commend him as a man of great reputation, it is worth the noting, (which is notedrIoh Albinus Typographus Mogunt. praefat. ad an icum Lectorē, quae praefigitur Anaſtaſio. Qui ſciret tantum Grammaticam iſto ſeculo rudi, doctiſſimus habebatur. Baron. annal. tom. 9. ad an. 802. nu. 12. by one of your owne friends) that in the age wherein he liued, doctiſſimi cenſebantur, qui velſolam Grammaticam callerent: they were counted great Clerks, who were skilled ſo much as in the Grammar. ſAlbinus loco citato.That in this Chronicle of Anaſtaſius, the phraſe is harſh, rude, and barbarous. That many things are auowed therein, which are farre from true. That therein there are many errors in the account of time, and ſome things wherein he croſſeth himſelfe. Which cenſure, for the maine point, is approued by many of your owne mothers children. For many Papiſts, in many particulars condemne it. As for example, tAnaſtaſ de vit. Pontif in vita An…ceti, &c.this man of great reputation reckens Anicetus before Pius, and Anterus before Pontianus. WhereasuPlatina de vitis Pontif in vita Aniceti, & Onuph in Chron. Rom. Pontif. your Chroniclers recken Pius before Anicetus, and Pontianus before Anterus. xIn vita Marcel.This man of great reputation records, that Marcellinus (one of your Popes) was brought to offer incenſe vntounto Idols, and that he did ſo: whereas youryAnnal to. 2. ad an. 302 nu 95. 96 &c. Baronius inclines rather vntounto the contrary. This man of great reputation zIn vita Liberijrecords, that the prieſts of Rome, by the aduice of Liberius, choſe Felix a prieſt to be a Biſhop in ſtead of Liberius: whereasaBa…on to. 3. ad an. 355. nu 57. your Chroniclers of greateſt eſteeme maintaine, that Felix was choſen prieſt by hereticks onelyonly, and not by conſent of Liberius. This man of great reputationbIn …ita Liberij. records, that Liberius ſubſcribed to the Arian hereſie: which neither cP…gh. hierarch Eccleſ. lib. 4. c. 8.Pighius nordAnnot in Platin. in vit. Fel. c. 2. Onuphrius can abide to heare of. This man of great reputationeIn vita Anaſt. 2 records, that Anaſtaſius the ſecond Pope of that name, communicated with Photinus the hereticke, who was all one with Acacius the Eutychian. And that he purpoſed with himſelfe to reſtore Acacius, who was depoſed by his predeceſſors: but could not effect it, becauſe God ſtrucke him with ſudden death. All which is falſe and fabulous infLib. 4. de Rom Pont. cap. 10 & Append. ad. lib. de ſummo Pont cap. 14. Bellarmines opinion. This man of great reputation gIn vita Marcellini: ceſſauit Epiſco… at. ann. 7m. 6 dieb. 25.records, that after Marcellinus, the Biſhopricke of Rome lay lea, ſeuen yeares, ſix moneths, and fiue and twentie daies: whereas byhAnnal to. 2. ad an 304. nu. 25. & 26. Baronius it lay lea but 25 daies in all. This man of great reputationiIn vita Euſeb. records, that the Croſſe of Chriſt was found in Euſebius the Popes daies, about the yeare 310: whereas bykAnnal. to. 3. ad an. 326. nu. 41. Baronius it was not found till the yeare 326. This man of great reputationlIn vita Hono. 1 reckens Honorius the firſt among the hereticks called Monothelites: whereas themOnuph. annotat. in Plat. in vit. Honorij 1. &c. moſt of your ſide, and by namenLib 4 de Ro. Pont. cap. 11. Bellarmine, would gladly cleare Honorius from this imputation. This man tels vsus, that Alexander the firſt ſa…e but eight yeares, and a few odde moneths: whereaspBaron annal. to. 2 ad an. 132. nu. 1. Baronius tels vsus, that he ſate ten yeares and odde moneths.oIn vita Alex. 1. This manqIn vita Pij 1. giueth to Pius, 19 yeares, foure moneths, and three daies: whereasrBaron. to. 2. ad an. 167. nu. 1. Baronius giues him but ten yeares. This manſIn vita Soteris makes Soter ſit nine yeares, and vpward: whereas bytBaron to. 2. ad ann. 179. nu. 51. Baronius he ſate not full foure yeares. This manuIn vita Anteri. ſaith, that Anterus ſate 12 yeares, 1 monethmonth, and 12 dayes: whereasxBaron. to. 2. ad ann. 238. nu. 1. Baronus ſaith, he ſate not a whole monethmonth. This manyIn vita Dionyſij. alloweth Denis but two yeares and a little more, whereaszTo. 2. ad ann. 272. nu 21. Baronius allowes him 11 yeares and more. This manaIn vita Stephani. 5. writes, that Stephen the fifth ſate 7 yeares, and 7 moneths: whereas bybAnnal to. 9. ad ann. 817. nu. 1. Baronius reckoning he ſate but ſeuē moneths, and two or three odde dayes. And ſo in many other things, this man of great reputation alloweth of that, wherof you allow not, & diſalloweth that which you allow. And therefore what reaſon hauehave you to preſſe vsus with his authoritie in this controuerſie?

PAP.

Great reaſon. For though he miſſed ſometimes the truth, yet he aymed alwayes at it: and though he was vnkindly dealt withall by ſome of the Popes, yet he was not carried away with malice, and moued thereby, as many are, to write an vntruth,

PROT.

What? Was Anaſtaſius, the man of great reputation, vnkindly dealt withal by ſome of the Popes? Who told you that tale?

PAP.

I had it ofcFlorim. cap. 14. nu. 1. Florimondus. And I thinke he was induced to ſay ſo, becauſe we reade in Leo the 4. his time, our Anaſtaſius was degraded by Pope Leo, and a Councell of 67. Biſhops.

PROT.

That Anaſtaſius, who was degraded by Leo the 4. and the Councell, was he (asdDe vitis Pont. in vita Bened. 3. Platina ſheweth) who ſtood vp Antipope againſt Benedict the 3. It was not this Anaſtaſius, Which you may learne of him, who made the Index Alphabeticall, for the more readie finding out of the moſt memorable points in Anaſtaſius Chronicle: foreIn Indice littera a. verbo Anaſtaſius. he diſtinguiſheth Anaſtaſius Bibliothecarius, from Anaſtaſius degraded by Leo, and ſet vp in oppoſition againſt Benedict the 3. But let Anaſtaſius be of as great reputation as you are diſpoſed to hauehave him of. How ſoone after Leo his death, doth Anaſtaſius report, that the clergie choſe Benedict the 3? Can you tell me that?

PAP.

Yea. The Sea was voide after Leo the 4. iuſt 15. daies, and no more. And then, not Ioane, but Benedict the 3. was choſen.

PROT.

Who told you ſo?

PAP.

Marry, pAnnot, in Plat. in vit. Ioh 8.Onuphrius,qLib. 3. de Ro. Pont. cap. 24. Bellarmine,rDe vtilitate Le gend. hiſt. Bernartius, ſCap. 14. pag. 123.Florimondus, and tDe vrbis Epiſc in Benedict. 3.Papyrius Maſſonus. For they ſay that theſe are Anaſtaſius his owne words: Sanctiſſimus Leo Papa 4. obdormiuit in Domino 16. Calend. Aug. ſepultus ad Sanctum Petrum, & ceſſauit Epiſcopatus dies 15. Quo mortuo, mox omnis Clerus Romanae ſedis, vniuerſi proceres, cunctuſ que populus ac ſenatus congregati ſunt, &c. vno conamine Benedictum Pontificem promulgauerunt. That is, The moſt holy Pope Leo the 4. died in the Lord the 16. of the Calends of Auguſt, and was buried at S. Peters, and the Biſhopricke was voide 15. daies. Now preſently vponupon his death, the whole Romane Clergie with all the nobles, and commons, and officers of the citie met: and as one man agreed that Benedict ſhould be their Pope.

PROT.

They all lie falſly. For the words (Et ceſſauit Epiſcopatus dies 15.) are not to be found (as before I told you) in Anaſtaſius. So that whatſoeuer they build vponupon this circumſtance (as the moſt of their building is) is built vponupon a falſe foundation, and therefore cannot ſtand. Yet beſides I would hauehave you know that Anaſtaſius purpoſely paſſed ouer in ſilence diuers things, which touched the Popes. For, Multa de Sergio deſiderari videntur apud Anaſtaſium,uAnnal. to. 10. ad ann. 847. nu. 6. ſaith Baronius. Anaſtaſius wants many things touching Sergius. Againe, Iohannis 8. res geſtae deſiderantur apud Anaſtaſium, fortaſſis praetermiſſae ob odioſam Photij reſtitutionem, ſaith the ſame xAnnal to. 10. ad an. 882. nu. 7.Baronius. The acts of Iohn the 8. are wanting in Anaſtaſius, perhaps becauſe he was loth to record that odious reſtoring of Photius.

yMulta praetermiſſa ab Anaſta ſio inueniuntur, & inter alia depraedatio Baſilicae S. Petri quae in vaticanis collibus extra vrbis maenia poſiſita erat. Baron. Annal to. 9. ad ann. 739. nu. 6. Plurima de eodem rege (viz. Luitprando) P. Diaconus praetermiſiſle conuincitur. Sed haud rerum ignoratione, ſed ne tanto vito no tam inureret, &c. Baron. Annal. to. 9 ad ann. 744. nu. 22.Anaſtaſius forbeares to ſpeake of Luitprandus ſacking S. Peters Church, which is without the wals of Rome. And ſo doth Paulus Diaconus too. Not for that he was ignorant of that fact, ſith he liued in the ſame time, but for that he was loath by telling truth to diſcredite Luitprandus. Wherefore let vsus leaue Anaſtaſius, and come vntounto the next, who liuing in thoſe dayes, paſſeth ouer Pope Ioane in ſilence.

PAP.

zBell lib. 3. de Ro. Pont. cap. 24. N. D. nu 24. p. 393. Et alij.Ado Biſhop of Vienna, who liued at the ſame time, hath not a word of this your Pope Ione.

PROT.

Ado liued not at the ſame time, nor neare the ſame time, if eitheraIn Bibliotheca verbo. Ado. Geſner, orbApparatus ſacer. verbo. Ado. Poſſeuinus, orcIn hiſt. vet. patrum. edit. Pariſ. 1583. ad initiū. Chron. Adonis Laurentius de la Barre, or*In Bibliot. vatican. impreſſ Romae. an. 1591 Tit. Author q. in opere citantur nomina. Angelus Rocca may be credited. For he (as they ſay) wrote a briefe Chronicle from the beginning of the world to his own time, to wit, to the yeare 1353. Wherfore it is not much materiall whether he miſſe her, or mention her. Say on.

PAP.

dFlorim. p 84.Theophanus Freculphus wrote in thoſe dayes an hiſtorie from the beginning of the world to his owne time: and yet he writes nothing of her.

PROT.

If Freculphus had written an hiſtorie of that length, yet there was litle reaſon why he ſhould hauehave mentioned her. For we*Freculphus floruit. an. 830. & quod excurrit. Poſleuin. Ap parat. lac. verbo. Freculphus. reade not that he liued aboue the yeare 840. But indeed his hiſtorie goes not ſo farre. He writ onelyonly to the yeare of Chriſt 550, aseIn Metho hiſt. Freculph hiſtoricus ab orbe. condito ad ann. Chriſti. 560. Chron, digerit. Bodin obſerueth: or to the yeare 560, asfChrō. l. 2. p. 110 Pontacus noteth: or at furtheſt to the yeare 600. For hauing ſpoken a few words of Gregory the great & Boniface who ſucceeded him, he ends preſently his ſtorie. Who is your next man?

PRO.

gO…uph. annot. in Plat. in vita Ioh. 8. Harding. loco in initiocitat. Florim. p 84Aimonius, A Monke of S. Germaines, and a famous French writer, speakes nothing of her.

PROT.

Aimonius, or Ammonius, or Annonius, (for he is diuerſly named) your famous French writer, drew out his ſtorie, byhAnnonius vſus que ad ann. 820 hiſtoriam texurt, ſaith Vaſquez de Adorat. lib. 2 cap. 9. diſput. 7. your owne mens confeſſiō, but to the yeare 828, or at furtheſt to*Gencbr. Chrō. lib. 4. ad an. 44 844, which fell nine or ten yeares ſhort (at leaſt) of Pope Ioanes time. And therefore me thinkes that you ſhould not looke that he ſhould write of her.

aeAP.

iN. D. nu. 24. p. 302.Audomarus the Pariſian omits her alſo in his hiſtory.

PROT.

Where might a man ſee Audomarus I pray you? kEpiſco…us qui dam noſtras eos authores citauit interdū, quos nulla vnquā habuit aetas. Canus. Loc. Com. lib. 11. c. 6. fol. 327.Canus tels of a Biſhop in his countrey which was wont to cite Authors that neuer were. Now I wiſh you be not of kindred to him in this: for I find no mention of any ſuch hiſtoriographer in Trithemius, or in Geſner, or in Poſſeuinus. Neither doth Bellarmine nor Baronius cite anie ſuch in their diſputes about this matter. When you can tell me certaine newes of ſuch a writer, you ſhall hauehave a more certaine anſwer. In the meane time proceed.

PAP.

Nay ſtay a little: for though neither Bellarmine nor Baronius mention Ademarus, (for ſo is his right name, and not Audomarus, as it is erroneouſly printed) where they speake of this matter: yet Ademarus is mentioned by Genebrard and Onuphrius, where they treat of this matter, as B. C. obſerued well, in hislPag. 296. and 297. Dolefull knell of Thomas Bel: where he taxeth Sutcliffe for captious quarelling with father Parſons (as he cals him) for citing Ademarus, calling him a counterfeit.

PROT.

B. C. is a fit patron for father Parſons: but an vnfit match to deale with Deane Sutcliffe. Deane Sutcliffe (no doubt) ſcornes him. And good cauſe why. For who but a foole would appeale to one of his owne fellowes for triall of his truth? Are not Genebrard aud Onuphrius as like to cite a counterfet Author as Parſons!

PAP.

mFlorim. p. 84.Lupus Seruatus ſaith nothing of her.

PROT.

Why? what occaſion had he to ſpeake of her, ſith he writ no bookes of hiſtorie? Beſides, Lupus Seruatus migrauit ad Dominum anno 851, ſaithnIn Chron. Mo naſterij Hirſaugienſis ad ann. 851. Trithemius: that is Lupus Seruatus died in the yeare 851. So that, though as a Prophet he might hauehave foretold of her deliuerie, yet as an Hiſtorian, he could not hauehave reported her deliuerie.

PAP.

Yea but Lupus Abbot of Ferrara in anoEpiſtola 103. quae habetur apud Baro. anna. to. 10. ad an. 856 nu. 8. & Florim. cap. 14. nu. 4. Epiſtle of his to Benedict the third, cals Leo Benedicts predeceſſor: and therby ſheweth, aspAnnal. to. 10. ad ann. 853. nu. 69. Baronius gathereth, that there was no ſuch Pope as Pope Ioane, betweene Benedict and Leo.

PROT.

What? doth Baronius gather ſuch a concluſion of ſuch premiſſes? Verily he gathereth where no man ſtreweth. For I pray you, doth this follow. Iohn the 9. ſpeaking of Stephen the 6.qBaron. to. 10. ad an. 900. nu. 8. cals him his predeceſſor. Ergo, there was no Pope betweene Iohn the 9. and Stephen the 6? If not, as indeed it doth not, for there were two Popes who came betweene them, the one calledrBaron. to. 10. ad ann. 901. nu. 1. Romanus, the otherſIbid. Theodorus) then neither will it follow, that becauſe Leo is called Benedicts predeceſſor, therefore there was no ſuch Pope, as Pope Ioane, betweene Benedict and Leo.

PAP.

tBaron. to. 10. ad an. 853. nu. 69Yea, but this Lupus in diuerſe of his Epiſtles, doth complaine of the miſerable eſtate of the Church in his time. And therefore if any ſuch horrible matter, as this of Pope Ioane, had fallen out,*Cetè ſi quod tam nefandū ſee lus accidiſlet, di cere minimè omiſiſſer, ſed im placabili luctu vir zelo plenus planxiſſet. doubleſſe he would hauehave ſpoken of it, and mourned pitifully for it.

PROT.

Doubtleſſe, Baronius, if you giuegive any credite to him, will make a foole of you. For doth notuTo. 10. ad ann 846. nu. 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. 17. he mention diuerſe of his Complaining Epiſtles, ſent to great perſonages? wherein yet he complaines of nothing, but that Courtriers robd his Corban; I meane his Monaſterie.xAd ann. 855. nu. 14. That he wanted an ambling Nagge to ride to Rome on.yAd ann. 856. nu. 10. That he wanted Tully de Oratore, Quintilian, and Donate vponupon Terence. And zAd ann. 856. nu. 20.that there was ſuch licentiouſneſſe in France (among the Laitie) that the people neither feared God nor the diuell. Of faults among the Clergie, Lupus complaines not at all.

PAP.

aN. D. p. 392. Florim. p. 84.Luitprandus, who writ an hiſtorie, ſpeakes nothing of her.

PROT.

What hiſtorie of Luitprandus do you meane? That which is intituled De vitis Pontificum, that is, of the Popes liues? which was printed thebAnno. 1602. other yeare at Mentz with Anaſtaſius: or his hiſtorie of ſuch accidents as fell out through Europe?

PAP.

I meane the latter. For I ſee the former, though it carry the name of Luitprandus, cIoh. Albinus praefar. ad Lectorem.caſt off by the Printer, as none of his.

PROT.

Now then you are a wiſe man, to tell me that Luitprandus mentions not Pope Ioane. For Luitprandus Ticiuenſis Diaconns, hiſtoriam per Europam geſtarum libris 6, ab An. 858. ad …0. vſque Othonis magni fere continuat, dChron. lib. 4. ad ann. 955.ſaith Genebrard. That is, Luitprandus Deacon of ſuch a Church in Italie, continues his hiſtorie of accidents which fell out in Europe, from the yeare 858. to the 30. yeare (almoſt) of Otho the great. By which you may ſee that he began his hiſtorie after Pope Ioanes time. And therefore had no cauſe to ſpeake of her.

PAP.

eN. D. and. Florim. locis citat…Lambertus Schafnaburgenſis hath not a word of her.

PROT.

To this I anſwer, firſt that he liued not in the ſame time with her: he liued anno 1077. Secondly I ſay, that this Lambertus did but touch by the way. all ages from the beginning of the world to the yeare of Chriſt 1040. asfLib. 2. chron. Pontacus truly obſerued: though he diſcourſed at large of the 37 yeares that followed. Thirdly, this Lambertus doth not ſo much as name Stephen the 4, or Paſchalis, or Eugenius, or Ʋalentinus, or Gregorie the 4, or Sergius the 2, or Leo the 4, or Benedict the third, or Nicolas, or Adrian the ſecond: and therefore what maruell if he ſpeake not of this Pope Ioane?

PAP.

gFlorim. p. 85. Onuph. in Plat. in vita Ioh. 8.Otho Friſingenſis, who liued about the yeare 1150. makes no mention of this ſtorie.

PROT.

But he doth. For Iohn the ſeueuth (hLib. 7. cap. 35. re…um in orbe geſtarū. Impreſſ. Argentorati, An. 1515. ſaith he) was a woman.

PAP.

aQui paul… poſt illius aetatē floruerunt, nihil de ea ſcripſerūt. &c Florim. cap. 10. pag. 84.They who liued within a few yeares after her, and writ at length of all other accidents, write nothing of her: and that is another preſumption, it is but a fable which is reported of her.

PROT.

Who are they you meane?

PAP.

The firſt isbFlorim. loco citato. Iohannes Diaconus, who in the yeare 870. writ of the Popes liues.

PROT.

That Iohannes Diaconus w. it S. Gregory the great his life,cFor ſo I reade in Trithem. de ſcript. Eccleſiaſt. verbo, Ioh. Diac. I grant; and*Poſſeuin. in Ap parat. ſac. verbo. Ioh. Diaconus. as ſome ſay Clements: but that he writ of any more Popes, I vtterly denie. You hauehave a pretie gift in alledging writings that neuer were. But ſay on.

PAP.

dFlorim, loco citato.Milo Monachus who liued Anno 871. ſaith nothing of her.

PROT.

Milo Monachus I beleeue ſaith nothing of her, nor any other Pope: for he writ no hiſtorie. They who commend him,eTrithem. lib. citato, verbo Milo. Sigebert. ad an 879. do commend him for a Rhetorician, and for a Poet, and for a Muſitian, but not for an Hiſtoriographer.

PAP.

fFlorim. loco citato.Paſſeratius Rabertus who liued in the yeare 881. ſaith nothing of her.

PROT.

This Paſſeratius is (ſurely) ſome author of your owne deuiſing. For no man can tell any newes of him. But (perhaps) you would ſay Paſchatius Ratbertus, forgTrithem. lib. citato. Poſleuin. appa. ſac. verbo. Paſchaſius. ſuch a one liued about the time you ſpeake of. Yet this writ no hiſtorie. This writ neither at length, nor in briefe, of any of the Popes liues.

PAP.

Yea buthFlorim. loco citato. Rhegino, who liued in the yeare 910. and comprehendeth briefly all the choice matters which fell out in the time of this ſuppoſed Pope Ioane, writes nothing of her.

PROT.

Rhegino writes nothing of Iohn the 2, nor of Boniface the 4, nor of Deuſdedit, nor of Boniface the 5. He writes not a word of Sergius the 2, nor of Leo the 4, nor of Benedict the 3: and therefore no maruell though he write nothing of this Ioane the woman Pope.

PAP.

iCum o…es ſcribendi principes, quorum alij haeretici, alij ſchiſmatici, alij anathemate ſeparati—quaecunque odium ſuggeſſit, in Pō tifices ex omni vitae praeteritae cauſa collecta probra turpiter euomuerint—nihil autem de Ioannae Pontificatu dixerint: Exiſtimandum eſt quaecunque de ea poſtea diuulgata ſunt, poſterorum haereticorum fraude fuiſſe excogitata. Florim. cap. 10. nu. 5. & 6.Why, but the greateſt enemies that euer the Popes had, who liued in, and after thoſe times, and were readie to caſt in the Popes teeth whatſoeuer they knew, or knew not, to the end they might diſgrace them, yet neuer obiected this of Pope Ioane. Which confirmes me much in my opinion, that this is but a tale, deuiſed long after by ſome craftie headed heretickes.

PROT.

Who are theſe I pray you?

PAP.

kFlorim. nu. 4.Iohn Biſhop of Rauenna is one of them, Methodius Illyricus another, and Michael Palaeologus the Emperour of Conſtantinople a third.

PROT.

How know you, that theſe neuer obiected Pope Ioanes leudneſſe to the diſgrace of the Romane Papacie? HaueHave you read all that they writ, and all that they ſpake?

PAP.

Nay: their writings are not extant,lFlorim. ibid. I confeſſe. But a man may know how they ſlandered the Popes by the anſwers of many godly men, made in defence of the Popes. For as we Catholickes at this day are forced to make mention of your obiections, when we vndertake to anſwer your bookes: ſo in thoſe dayes the Catholicks were driuen to make mention of the ſlaunders which they refuted. Now in their refutation of ſlanders, there is no ſuch thing as this of Pope Ioane.

PROT.

Why, pe…duenture they knew, that in this they were ſlandered with a matter of truth; and therefore they held it beſt to paſſe it ouer in ſilence. Queſtionleſſe your fellowes at this day do ſo often. When Beza obiected this verie matter in the aſſembly of Poyſy, before the Cardinall of Lorraine, and the Sorboniſts of Paris: who anſwered him? Do not youraIohannes Sam martinus in fabulam Ioannae pſeudo pontif. Romanae è corrupto hiſtoriarù albo eraſam à Flor. &c and Florim cap. 6. pag 58. owne men confeſſe, that no man ſaid a word to him? When the Huſſites (as you call them) obiected the ſame at the Councell of Conſtance; bSilentio ſatiſfecerunt Catholici doctores, &c Florim. cap. 6. nu. 6.was not ſilence their anſwer? We reade in acSynodus Pariſienſis anno Chriſti 824. Frā cofurti impreſſ. apud haeredes Wecheli 1596. pag. 145. booke lately ſet forth, intitled Synodus Pariſienſis, thatdIn epiſt. Pauli ad Rom. S. Ambroſe asked, Quaratione, quáue authoritate, imagines Angelorum vel aliorum Sanctorum ador ande ſint, cùm ipſi ſancti Angeli vel ſancti homines viuos ſe ador ari noluerunt? What reaſon or what warrant men had to worſhip the images of men or Angels, ſeeing the Angels themſelues and holy men aliue refuſed to be worſhipped? Now the two great Cardinals,eAppend ad lib de cultu Imag. Bellarmine andfAnnal. tom 9. ad an. 825. nu 3. Baronius, ſnarle at this booke, ſeeking by all meanes to diſgrace it.gLoco citato, in initio Bellarmine expreſly profeſſeth the confuting of it: andhNu. 5. &c. Baronius ſets the moſt of it downe in his Annales euen word for word, making gloſſes here and there vponupon it, in way of anſwer to it. But both of them paſſe ſlily by the words of Ambroſe. If we had not had the booke it ſelf, we ſhould neuer hauehave knowne by their anſwers, of ſuch an argument of S. Ambroſe his making, againſt Images. In like manner theſeiBellar. lib. 2. de Purg cap. 8. Baron. Annal. to. 8. ad an. 604. p. 182 &c. two Champions vndertake to anſwer ſuch arguments as are made to iuſtiſtifie the report of Gregorie, deliuering Traian out of hell. Yet there is one argument made by theirkAlphonſ. Sal meron in 1. Cor 15. diſput 27. oppoſites, which they neuer touch; and that is this: that in S. Gregories Church at Rome, the ſumme of that ſtorie is engrauen in an ancient ſtone. VponUpon which argument the IeſuitelCuius rei extat inſigne Romae monumentum lapidi antiquiſſimo inſcriptum in aede ſacra ipſius Gregorij—quod ego proprijs oculis hauſi. &c Salmeron loco citato, p. 239 & 240. Salmeron ſtands much. If their oppoſites writings were not extant, by their anſwers, we had neuer heard of ſuch an obiection. Wherefore if you would perſwade me that theſe eager enemies obiected not this againſt the Pope, you muſt bring better proofe thereof then this, that you find no foot-ſtepping of it in the anſwers made vntounto them. But go on with your argument: what other enemies ſilence perſwades you that this ſtorie is a fable?

PAP.

mFlorim. cap. 10. pag. 87.Hincmarus Archbiſhop of Rhemes, Theodoricus de Niem, Waltramus Biſhop of Norinberge, Benno the Cardinall, bitter enemies vntounto the Pope, paſſe this euer in ſilence. And that is a great argument to me, there was no ſuch thing.

PROT.

That Hincmarus Archbiſhop of Rhemes ſhould hauehave liued at enmitie with your Popes, it is not for your Popes credit it ſhould be knowne. For he was ſingularly wel learned, very wiſe, and very honeſt, aspVir in diuini… Scripturis ſingulariter doctus—ſapientia & honeſtate morum conſpicuus. Trithem, de ſcript. Eccleſ verbo. Hincmarus. Trithemius witneſſeth: in ſo much that your great CardinallqTo. 9. ad ann. 760. nu. 3. Baronius, when he hath occaſion to cite him, intitles him*S. Hincmarus. Saint Hincmarus: wherein hisrIoh. Gabri. Biſciola Epit. Baron. ad an. 760. Epitomizer followes him.

PAP.

Well:ſFlorim. p. 87. what ſay you to Theodoricus de Niem?

PROT.

I ſay (which before I proued) that he mentions the ſtorie.

PAP.

And what ſay you to Waltram Biſhop of Norinberge?

PROT.

I ſay, there are few of his workes extant: and in tDe Inueſtitura Epiſcoporum. printed at Baſil anno 1566.thoſe which are extant, he ſhewes no gall againſt the Pope: onelyonly he proues that the Emperour hath right to the inueſtiture of Biſhops.

PAP.

uFlorim. cap. 10. nu. 5. & 6.Why, but do you not thinke that Benno the Cardinall, who ſpake ſo much euill of Gregorie the ſeuenth, and other Popes, would hauehave noted this, if he had knowne of it?

PROT.

No. Benno (no doubt) knew much foule matter by many other Popes, which he did not touch. There are many ſhamefull things reported in other ſtories by many of your Popes, which Benno hath not in his ſtorie. But do you thinke in good earneſt, that Benno the Cardinall was the author of that booke which goes vnderunder his name, and is intitled Vita & geſta Hildebrandi?

PAP.

Nay indeed I do not. I rather thinke it was made by ſome Lutheran, and falſly fathered on Benno. And of that mind isxLib. 4. de Ro. Pont. cap. 13. Bellarmine in part, andyFlorim. p. 88. Florimondus wholy.

PROT.

So was not Orthuinus Gratius, who ſet it out at Colen, in the yeare 1535. For he, though as hote a Papiſt as any of the crew, held it for Benno his owne, andzMalo magis huic Benoni Cas dinali quàm Platinae, &c. crederc. Epiſt ad Lector, fol. 39. in Faſcie. rerſi expetend. & fugiend. profeſſed that he rather beleeued him then Platina, and Stella, and Sabellicus. But ſee you not by the way your owne folly, in that you conclude there was no Pope Ioane, becauſe the writer of that ſtorie makes no mention of any ſuch Ioane. I hope (if he were a Lutheran that made it) he knew there was a common fame of ſuch a matter. And therefore if he had bene diſpoſed to hauehave diſgorged himſelfe of all that lay on his ſtomacke, he would hauehave caſt vp that with the reſt. But go forward.

PAP.

aFlorim. p. 88. & 89. Rupertus Epiſc. Angl.—quaecunque potuit excogitare conuicia eſt ementitus.Rupertus the Engliſh Biſhop, who becauſe he was excommunicated by the Pope, deuiſed and raked together all maner of lies againſt the Pope, did not for all that obiect this.

PROT.

bMagnus habetur Philoſophus Latinis & Graecis ad plenum eruditus, lector in Theologiae ſcho lis, praedicator in populo, &c. Math. Paris. hiſt Angl. in Hen. 3. pag. 1162.Rupertus the Engliſh Biſhop, whom you meane was the man commonly called Groſthead. cQuis eſt iſte ſenex delius, ſurdus, & abſurdus, ſaith Innocent. 4. Math Paris. ibid.A great Philoſopher, excellently well ſeene both in Greeke and Latine, a Reader of Diuinitie in the Schooles, a famous Preacher in the pulpit, a man of holy life and conuerſation: euen ſo holy, that in the opinion of the whole clergie of France and England, there was not ſuch another among the Prelates of that time: though it pleaſed your Pope Innocentius the fourth, to call him old foole, ſurd, and abſurd companion, and to threaten he would make him a by-word and an aſtoniſhmēt vntounto the world. And to ſay truth, this man had many bickerings with the Pope, inſomuch that in one letter hedApud Math. Pariſ. pag. 1161. ſignified vntounto him, that by his writs with (non obſtante) he brought vponupon the world a Noahs flood of miſchieues, wherby the puritie of the Church was defiled, and the quietneſſe of the common wealth hindered. That by his Reſeruations, Commendaes, Prouiſions of Benefices for Perſons, who ſought to fleece, and not to feed the flocke of God, he committed ſuch a ſinne, ſo contrary to the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and the Euangeliſts: ſo hatefull, ſo deteſtable, ſo abominable to Chriſt Ieſu, as neuer ſinne was, but the ſinne of Luciſer: nor neuer ſhall be, but the ſinne of Antichriſt, whom the Lord ſhall deſtroy with the breath of his mouth at his coming. He ſignified vntounto him, that no mā could, with a good cōſcience, obey any ſuch mandats as he ſent, though they came from the higheſt order of Angels. For they tended not to edification but the vtter vndoing of the Church. Are theſe the lies by reporting whereof he ſought to reuenge himſelfe on your Pope? Alas, thecVt vera fateamur, vera ſunt quae dicit, ſaid the Cardinals. Math. Pariſ. p. 1162. Colledge of Cardinals confeſſed before the Pope, that they could not blame him for writing thus, for he ſaid nought but truth.

PAP.

fImpuro ore alter Anglus no mine Mat. Pariſ. omne iniuriarū genus conflauit. Florim. cap. 10. pag. 89.Another Engliſhman, Mathew Paris by name, made a hodge-podge of all the villanies he could remember, and yet he hath not this.

PROT.

Mathew Paris, indeed tels many foule tales of the Popes and the Papiſts. As for example:gHiſt. Angl. in Guil. conqueſt. anno. 1072. p. 10. He reports how Satanas, & omne contubernium inferorum. That is, The diuell of hell, and all his helliſh crue, writ letters gratulatory to the whole rablement of the Popiſh Clergie, acknowledging their kindneſſe, in that following their pleaſures, and giuing ouer preaching, they ſuffered more ſoules to go to hell then euer went before.

hIbid an. 1074.He reports how Gregorie the 7. ſet the whole Church on a hurry, by depoſing maried Prieſts frō their prieſthood, and forbidding the Laitie to heare their ſeruice; becauſe he had no preſident for ſuch his proceeding, and becauſe (as ſome thought) it was an vnaduiſed part, contrary to the opinion of the ancient Fathers, who wrote that the Sacraments of the Church, by the inuiſible working of the ſpirit, hauehave like effect, whether they be adminiſtred by good or bad men, &c.

iIn Hen. 1. ad ann 1125. p. 93.He reports how a Cardinall Legate, at a Councell held in London, inueighing againſt Prieſts Lemans, was taken the ſame night after in bed with a whore.

kIn Hen. 3. pag. 617.He reports how Germanus Archbiſhop of Conſtantinople, ſignified vntounto the Cardinals of Rome: that the Grecians ſtumbled much at this, that the Cardinals deſired to be accounted his diſciples, who ſaid: Siluer and gold I hauehave none: and yet were wholly ſet vponupon gathering of ſiluer and gold.

lIn Hen. 3. pag. 712. ad an. 1240He reports how the Pope enioyned by one mandate to the Biſhops of Canterburie, Lincolne, and Salisbury, that they ſhould prouide for 300 Romanes in benefices next vacant. And they ſhould giuegive no benefice till they had prouided for ſo many competently.

mIn Hen. 3. ad ann. 1251. pag. 1089.He reports how Hugh the Cardinall bragd, when Innocentius departed from Lions, that whereas there were foure ſtewes at his coming thither, he had left them but one. Marry that reached from the one end of the towne to the other.

nIn Hen. 3. ad an. 1249. p. 1017 & pag. 539. & 757.He reports how the Franciſcans and Minorites, by commandement of the Pope, appointed all ſorts of people, yong and old, men and women baſe and noble, weak and ſtrong, ſound and ſicke, to go for recouerie of the holy land. And yet the next dare, yea ſometimes the ſame houre, for money, they diſmiſſed them againe.

oIn Hen. 3 p. 1100. ad an. 1251He reports how Pope Innocentius the fourth, ſtirred vp the Chriſtian people of Brabant and Flaunders to warre againſt Conradus the Emperour, promiſing them for their labour for giueneſſe of all their ſinnes. Yea he promiſed ſuch warriers not onelyonly forgiueneſſe of ſinnes for their owne vſe, but forgiueneſſe of ſinnes for their parents alſo. The fathers and mothers of ſuch as warred againſt Conradus, had all their ſinnes forgiuen them, as well as the warriours themſelues.

Theſe and many ſuch like tales he tels by the Pope, which the truth it ſelfe inforced him to do. But he meddles not with any thing which was done by any Pope within 1000. yeares after Chriſt. And therefore no maruaile though he ſpake nothing of Pope Ioane.

PAP.

pFlorim. ca. 10. pag. 89.Iohn of Calabria, a man famouſly known for a railer againſt the Popes, ſpake nothing of this.

PROT.

Iohn of CalabriaqRoger Houe. Annal. pars poſterior in Rich. 1. pag. 388. told our king Richard the firſt, that Antichriſt was as then borne in Rome, and that he ſhould be made Pope.rPoſleum. Apparat ſacer. verb Cyrillus Carmelita. Iohn of Calabria was generally reputed a Prophet, & a man of great learning. Yet Iohn of Calabria was ſo farre from rayling againſt your Popes, that (if ſAppend. ad lib de Summo Pont. cap. 11.Bellarmine ſay true) he ſpake very honorably of them. And therefore his ſilence, in this caſe, doth not helpe you.

PAP.

tFlorum. loco citato.Yea, but Dantes the Italian Poet, would ſurely hauehave touched this ſtorie, if he had heard any inkling of it.

PROT.

Why ſo? Dantes found fault onelyonly with ſixe of your Popes, viz. with Anaſtaſius the 2, Nicolas the 3, Boniface the 8, Clement the 5, Iohn the 22, and Celeſtine the 5, as uAppend. 2d l, de Summ. Pont cap. 14.Bellarmine notes. Whereby it is plaine that he neuer purpoſed to raue vp all the filth which he found written of your Popes. Queſtionleſſe, he might well hauehave heard of this, forxPolon. Dante antiquior, Bell, ibid. he liued after Martinus Polonus, and in Martinus dayes the report of this was common. HaueHave you any more to ſay?yN. D. p. 393.

PAP.

Yea And not onelyonly the Latin writers, but euen the greek Hiſtoriographers, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Curopalatas, and others, that wrote before Martinus Polonus, of matters concerning the Latine Church in thoſe daies, and were no friends to the ſame, and would hauehave bene content of ſuch an aduantage againſt it, write nothing thereof at all. Which is an euident proofe there was no ſuch matter.

PROT.

What? an euident proofe?

PAP.

zB. C. In his Dolefull knell of Thomas Bell lib. 2. pag. 296.Yea: an euident proofe, which you may perceiue by Sutcliffes anſwer to father Parſons (as he cals him) for he neuer, I warrant you, ſo much as once names theſe Greeke Hiſtoriographers, but ſuppreſſeth that cunningly, or rather maliciouſly, becauſe he could frame no colourable anſwer vntounto it.

PROT.

D. Sutcliffe, whom you ſcornfully call Sutcliffe, neuer intended to trouble himſelf, or his reader, with laying open Parſons foolery in eueryevery particular. Otherwiſe aſſure your ſelf, he would not hauehave paſſed by this. For it is a matter of no great cunning to ſhape this argument his anſwer. For tell me. Had you not once a Pope called Marke, who ſate, as diuers of your ownaPlat. de vit. Pon. in vita Mar Flores. Hiſt. ad ann. 341. hiſtories note, 2 yeares 8 moneths, and 20 daies? And had you not another Pope called Marcellus, bPlat. in vit… Marcell. 1. Onu. in Chron. ad an. 304.who ſate aboue 5 yeares?

PAP.

We had. But what of that?

PROT.

YourcLib a Chronogr Pontacus, anddChronol lib. 3 Genebrard confes, that all the Greeke writers in a manner, omit to ſpeake of the former. AndePontac. & G… neb. locis citatis that all Greeke writers without exception, omit to ſpeake of the latter. Now if you, notwithſtanding their paſſing by of theſe, be yet perſwaded that theſe were Popes, why may you not reſt perſwaded that there was a Pope Ioane, though they do paſſe by her, and write not one word of her? I hope you beleeue many things, whereof they write nothing. We reade in yourfAurea Legēd. Exaltation of the holy Croſſe. Legend, yea In yourgBreutar. Rom. in officio Exaltat. S. Crucis. Maſſe bookes, that Heraclius the Emperour when he would hauehave entred in by the gate, by which our Sauiour went to his paſſion, clad like a king, with the croſſe on his ſhoulders: that he was miraculouſly hindred, and could not get through till he had caſt off his princely attyre, and put off his hole and his ſhooes. Do not you beleeue this? I am ſure you do. Yet hLib. 1. de Cruce, cap. 57. pag. 170.Gretzer acknowledgeth, that the Grecians, ſuch as Cedrenus and Zonoras, write nothing of this, profeſſing that he likes it neuer a whit the worſe for their ſilence. For they (as he further notes) omitted many other matters of truth, whereof no man doubts. But how know you, that no Grecian euer writ of ſuch an accident? It ſeemes that they did: becauſe Chalcocondylas a Grecian of later yeares hath writ thereof, as ⁱ before I hauehave ſhewed you. For, from whence could he hauehave it, but from the Grecians his anceſtors? You muſt bring more euident proofe then this is, or elſe you will neuer perſwade any man offence and reaſon, that the ſtorie of Pope Ioane, which is commended to vsus by ſo great a cloud of witneſſes, is fabulous.

PAP.

kN. D. pag 393Why, but Hermannus Contractus, and Conradus Abbas Vrſpergenſis, and others mo, write nothing of this Ioane of yours.

PROT.

And what of that? will you conclude thereupon, that there was neuer any ſuch woman Pope? Tell me in good earneſt, do arguments taken from authoritie of a few men, hold negatiuely? Is it a good argument, S. Paul, S. Luke and Seneca, do not ſay that Peter was at Rome? ergo Peter was not at Rome? Bellarmine denies this argument. Reſpondeo ſaithlLib. 2. de Rom Pont. cap. 8. vide lib. 2. de I…dulg. cap. 20. Bellarmine: Nihil concludi ex argumentis ab authoritate negatiuè. Non enim ſequitur, Lucas, Paulus & Seneca, non dicunt Petrum fuiſſe Romae, igitur non fuit Petrus Romae. Non enim iſti tres omnia dicere debuerunt; & plus creditur tribus teſtibus affirmantibus, quàm mille nihil dicentibus; modò iſti non negent, quod alij affirmant: that is, I anſwer: negatiue arguments are nought worth. For it followes not, that S. Peter was neuer at Rome, becauſe Luke, Paul, and Seneca do not report that he was at Rome. For theſe three were not bound to report all that was true. Beſides, three witneſſes ſpeaking to a cauſe, deſerue more credite then a thouſand who ſtand mute, not denying that which is witneſſed by the three. And in another place, Certè (ſaithmLib. 1. de extrema vnctione cap. 6. Bellarmine) magis credi debet tribus teſtibus affirmantibus, quàm infinitis nihil dicentibus: that is, Verily a man ſhould rather beleeue three witneſſes ſpeaking to a cauſe, then infinite, who neither ſpeake pro nor con. Againe, tell me whether Denis Biſhop of Athens, was not afterward B. of Paris; though. Ado B. of Triers in Germanie, and Suidas a Greeke writer, make no mention of that his ſecond Biſhopricke? Your Lipomanus reſolues vponupon Metaphraſtes, and one Michael Syngelus his word, that Denis was B. of Paris, though Ado and Suidas ſpeake not of it. Their paſſing it ouer in ſilence, doth not preiudice Metaphraſtes and Syngelus report, who ſay he was B. of Paris, innTo. 1. de ſanc. Hiſt. praefat. in Martyriū S. Dionyſij per Metaphraſten. Lipomanus opinion And why then though theſe and many mo, ſay nothing of Pope Ioane, might there not be ſuch a Pope, ſith as many and as learned as they do reckon her among the Popes?oProlegom. 6. in Euang. Salmeron, one of your prime Ieſuites, notes, that when one Hiſtorian reports a matter, and another paſſeth by it, the latters ſilence doth not preiudice the truth of the other hiſtorians relation. Ealex apud hiſtoriographos obſeruatur (ſaith he) vt quando vnus ex duobus hiſtoricis aliquid affirmat, quod alius ſupprimit, non deroget affirmanti qui tacet.

PAP.

pOnuph. and Harding locis ſupra citatis.Yea but there are in the Popes librarie ſix or ſeuen tables of Popes, wherein there is no mention of her.

PROT.

And what of that? Your Popes Librarie is compared bqOmnis copioſa bibliotheca (in particular he meanes the Vatican) refert ſimilitudinem ſagenae miſſae in mare, ex omni genere pi cium congregantis, bonos & malos continens libros probatos & improbatos, vtiles & inutiles ſimul amplexans, ſaith Baron. annal. 10. 8. ad an. 604. nu. 50. Baronius to a draw net, which gathers together good and bad. Your Popes Librarie hath in it bookes of all ſorts, approued, diſproued: profitable, vnprofitable.rRo. Biblioth habet libros tum ſuppoſitos, tum improbatae lectionis. Cope. Dial. 4. cap. 19. p. 567. It hath counterfet and forbidden bookes, as well as bookes of better reckning. They are ſimple people (*Loco ſupra citato. as we reade in Baronius) who beleeue reports the rather, for that they are to be found in bookes which are in the Popes Librarie. Yet ſuppoſe theſe ſeuen tables be of beſt note: will you yeeld thus much to me, that he who is numbred in theſe ſeuen tables, or at leaſt in as many, as authenticall as theſe, as a Pope; was a Pope?

PAP.

No, not I. For I know that Leo the 8. is numbred as a Pope innBriſtowes printed with his Demands many tables, and inoOnuph annot. in Plat. in vitam Alex. 3. ſome of thoſe ſeuen, if not in them all. And yet. I am ofpNon dignus qui Pontifex numeretur, ſed intruſus & occupator potiùs nominandus. Annalium tom. 10. ad an. 964. Baronius mind, that Leo the eight was an intruder and an vſurper: and that he was not worthy to be called a Pope. But why asked you of me this queſtion?

PROT.

If this be no good argument: Leo the eight is numbred among thee Popes in ſeuen tables that are in the Popes Librarie, or in ſeuen as authenticall as theſe in the Popes Library, ergo Leo the 8. was a Pope: What reaſon hauehave you to thinke yours good, which is this in effect: Ioane the woman Pope is not numbred among the Popes in ſeuen tables which are in the Popes Librarie: Ergo there was no ſuch Ioane a woman Pope? If ſeuen tables ſpeaking out for a Pope, do not conuince the being of ſuch a Pope: why ſhould their ſilence conuince the not being of a Pope? Might they not as well leaue out one who had bene Pope, as put in one who neuer was Pope?

PAP.

But why ſhould they hauehave left her out?

PROT.

Partly for her ſexes ſake, becauſe ſhe was a woman; and partly in regard of the filthineſſe of her fact. For ſo your ſtories note. And this need not ſeeme ſtrange to you, if you would but obſerue that other Popes, vponupon other occaſions, hauehave bene paſſed by, by diuers, as no Popes. As for example: Felix the 2. was a Pope and a Martyr, asqLib. 4. de Ro. Pont. cap. 9. Bellarmine teacheth. For Felicem 2. vt Papam & Martyrem Eccleſia Catholica veneratur, ſaith Bellarmine. And the ſate in the Popedome one yeare, foure moneths, and two daies, as we reade inrIn vita Felicis 2 Platina. Yet byſChronol. lib. 3. ad an. 368. Genebrards confeſſion, Marcellinus omits to ſpeake of him in his Chronicle, becauſe he was ſuſpected of hereſie. And for the ſame cauſe, or ſome ſuch like cauſe,tEpiſt. 165. S. Auſtin anduLib. 2. Optatus mention him not among the Popes, in their memoriall of Popes. Nor yet Briſtow in his table of Popes, which is printed with his wiſe demaunds. In like manner, that one Cyriacus was Pope, it is acknowledged byxGolden Legéd in the life of Vrſula. Polon. ad. an. 238. Supplē. chron. ad ann. 235. Ranulf. Ceſtrenſ. in Poly chron. lib. 4c. 20. Petrus de Nata. talibus in catal. Sanct. lib. 9. c. 87 diuers. Yet it is rar… to find him in any catalogue of Popes. For as ayIoh de Parifijs de poteſtate reg…a & papali. pag. 217. cap vlt. In Sext. lib. 1. Tit 7 de renunciatione. in gloſ…a. great Papiſt writeth, Iſte Cyriacus in catalogo paparum non annumeratur, quia credebant ipſum non propter deuotionem, ſed propter oblectamentum virginum dimiſiſſe Epiſcopatum. Cyriacus is not in the regiſter of Popes, becauſe it was thought he left the Popedome, not for deuotion, but for the louelove that he bare to certaine wenches. Damaſus the ſecond, hath his place inzPlat. in vita Damaſi 2. Polonus in Chron. circa ann. 1040. many popiſh Chronicles in the throng of Popes: yet there areaCenſent nonnulli hunc inter Pontifices nequaquā numerandſi eſſe, ſaith Plat. loco citato. many on the other ſide, who let him go for one that is naught, and neuer number him. And in much like ſort theybFelix 4. teſte Maſlono de vrbis Epiſcop. lib. 2. in vita lohan. 1 p. 85. deale with others.

PAP.

cFlorim cap. 22 pag. 190.If Pope Ioane were omitted for the filthineſſe of her fact, why was that cloſe ſtoole reſerued; and that monument of hers, whereof you told me before, ſet vp in one of the high ſtreetes in Rome? For the ſtoole and the image were as like to continue the memorie of her, as any record in writing. To be plaine with you, I do not ſee how you can rid your hands of contradiction in this point.

PROT.

Well enough. For may not ſome be of one opinion, ſome of another? May not ſome thinke good to continue the memory of that, which others, for ſhame of the world, would hauehave forgotten?dSee Le Frane diſcours, printed anno. 1602. Did not ſome of your fellow Papiſts in France denie, that Iohn Chaſtell was taught by the Ieſuits to murther Henry the 4. of France, becauſe they were loth to make the Ieſuits odious: and yet did not others helpe to erect a pillar of ſtone neare to the kings pallace, whereby ſo much was notified? If any man ſhould affirme, that the ſame man who omitted Pope Ioane for the filthineſſe of her fact, erected ſuch a monument of her in the ſtreets, and preſcribed ſuch a ſtoole to be kept for ſuch a purpoſe, I know not how he could deliuer himſelfe from contradiction. But ſpeaking of diuers men, his ſpeech hangeth wel enough together: there is no ſhew of contradictiō in it. For further proofe where of, it is worthy your conſideration, that when Paul the third, moued with the ſpirit of God (aseIn his Reioynder to M. luel about the Maſſe pag. 177. Harding ſaith) and deſirous to reforme the Church, gaue charge to his beſt learned, wiſeſt and moſt godly zealous men that he knew, 4 Cardinals, three Biſhops, and two others, to enquire and ſearch out what abuſes and diſorders were in the Church, and eſpecially in the Court of Rome: which they did, offering vp vntounto him a libel containing the ſumme of all their proceedings. Some thought their labors worthy of regiſtring: others thought them fitter to be burnt, which appeares by this, that the libell is printed in Crabs edition of the Councell, anno 1551. and yet put into the Index librorum prohibitorum, by Paul the 4, (one of thoſe foure Cardinals who exhibited it to Paule the 3:) and left out of Dominicus Nicolinus his edition of the Councels at Venice, auspiciis Sixti Quinti, in the yeare 1585. and out of Seuerinus Binnius his edition at Colen, 1606.

PAP.

cBell. lib, 3. de Ro. Pon. c. 24.Yea, but giuegive me leaue I pray you. If Pope Ioane were omitted for the filthineſſe of her fact: yet ſhould there hauehave bene mention made of the vacancie of the Sea, for that time ſhe was Pope, or elſe there will be a manifeſt error in Chronologie.

PROT.

A manifeſt error in Chronology? A foule abſurditie indeed, to miſſe two yeares in reckoning. But I trow there are fouler then this, how euer the matter wilbe ſalued. For Onuphrius and Briſtow reckon 230 Popes to Gregory the 13, and*So doth Maſſonus de vrbis Epiſcopis. Genebrard 234. Whereas by Platina his account, there ſhould be 235. for he reckons to Ziſtus the 4. with whom he ends 221. Popes: after whom, to Gregory the 13. eueryevery man reckons 14. which makes vp the number of 235. Yet Verſteganus in his table, printed at Antwerpe 1590, numbers no mo then 231. Againe, do notdAnaſtaſ. in vita Euariſti. ſome of your Chronologies record, that Eu…riſtus ſate 13 yeares, whereaseBaron Annal. to. 2, ad an. 121. nu. 1. others ſay, he ſate but nine yeare? Do notfBaron. Annal. to 2. ad ann. 272 nu. 21. ſome of them ſay, that Denis ſate 11 yeares.gAnaſtaſ. in vita Dionyſij. Others that he ſate but 2. yeares? And do not theſe differences, and ſuch as theſe are, whereof we hauehave ſpoken before in part, argue manifeſt errors in your Chronologies? If no further inconueniences follow vponupon Pope Ioanes omiſſion then a manifeſt error in Chronology for that ſpace ſhe liued, we may well enough beleeue that ſome omitted her, not for that ſhe was not, but that they were aſhamed of her. For 2. yeares and odde moneths break no ſquare in your Chronologies, no more then an inch with a bungling Carpenter.

PAP.

lFlorim c. 1. p. 6.Yea, but no body within 400. yeares after mentions her Popedome.*B. C. in his Dolefull knell of Tho. Bell. p. 295. and 296. And is it poſſible, that all writers ſhould ſo conspire together, that the truth thereof could neuer be certainly knowne, till 400. yeares after?

PROT.

You lauiſh, when you talke of 400. yeares after. For I hauehave prooued vntounto you alreadie, by the bookes that are yet extant, that it was knowne ſooner. But ſuppoſe we had no writer who liued within 400. yeares of Pope Ioane, to produce for proofe: will you (in that reſpect) denie the ſtorie? Do not you Papiſts cōmend vntounto vsus many ſtories as true, for which you can bring vsus no proof out of any writer, who liued within 400. yeares after?mBell. lib. 2. de Imag. c. 10. You tel vsus of an Image of Chriſt, which was made by Nicodemus, who came to our Sauiour by night, for feare of the Iewes: and of it you report wonderfull things. But you are not able to name the man, (ſhall I ſay within 400. yeares of Nicodemus? nay not within 600. yeares of Nicodemus) who writeth any ſuch thing. Againe, nBell. loco citato, & Gretſer. de Cruce. l. 2. c. 1.you tell vsus, that S. Luke drew certaine pictures of the virgine Marie. ButoLib. 1. Collectaneorum. Theodorus Lector is the ancienteſt man, that your friends alledge for proofe of this. And he Pliued at leaſt 500. yeares after. Thirdly,qBell. loco citato. & Baro. Annal. to. 1. ad ann. Chriſt. 31. nu. 61 you write that our Sauiour Chriſt, wiping his face with an handkerchiefe, imprinted his Image therin: and ſent it to Agbarus for a token. But you can name no Author for this, butrLib. 4. cap. 26. Euagrius ſSee Baro. Annal. 10. 8. ad ann. 594. nu. 30.who liued 600. yeares after Chriſt. Fourthly,tBellar. lib. 1. de Clericis. cap. 9. Pamelius annot. in Cypr. epiſtolā 52. nu. 29. Carerius de poteſtate. Ro. Pont. l. 1. c. 18. Pet. de Natal. in Catal. ſanct. l. 8. c. 53. the moſt of you hold it for a certain truth, that Adrian the Pope was content that Charles the great ſhould nominate the B. of Rome, and other Biſhops of his dominions: and yet there are among your ſelues, who write, that there can be no proofe made thereof out of any writer who liued within 400 yeares of Charles the great his time.

That the virgine Marie made that coate of our Sauiours, which was without ſeame, ouruAnnot. in Ioh. 19. 23. in marg. Rhemiſts teach, andxLudolphus de vita Ie…u, part. 2. cap. 63. p. 221. Col. …. Others of you adde to that, that as our Sauiour grew in height & in breadth, ſo the coate on his backe grew. Do you thinke that there is an Author within 400. yeares after our Sauiors time that taught ſo.

yTurrian lib 1. contra Magdeburg cap. 25.Turrian reports, andzGretſer. lib. 2. de Cruce. cap 1. To. 1. Gretſer after him: That the Apoſtles made this Canon in a Councell which they kept at Antioch: Ne decipiantur fideles ob idola, ſed pingant ex oppoſito diuinam humanam que , manufactam, impermixtam effigiem Dei veri, ad ſaluatoris Domini noſtri Ieſu Chriſti, ipſiuſ que ſeruorum, contra idola & Iudaeos, neque errent in idolis, neque ſimiles ſint Iudaeis. That is, Let not the faithful people be deceiued by idols: but let them on the contrary part, make the image of our Sauior Chriſt both God and man, and the images of his ſeruants; and let them not be deceiued by idols, nor ſhew themſelues like vntounto the Iewes. But I do not beleeue that this can be proued to be a Canon of that Councell, by anie writer within 400. yeares of that time. YouraBellar. lib 2. de Ro. Pont c 26. Baro Annal. …. 10. ad ann. 963. nu. 35. Rabbins alledge*Concilium Romanum & Synueſtanum. two Councels, the one kept (as they ſay) in the yeare 303. the other in the yeare 324. both ſounding much to the Popes praiſe, and aduancing of his authoritie. But for any thing I reade, the moſt learned among you can bring no proofe within 400 yeares after, that anie ſuch Councels were then kept. Nicolas 1. who liued in the yeare 860, is the firſt, whom bLoco ſuprà citato.Bellarmine names for that purpoſe.

PAP.

aN. D. nu. 25. pag. 393.Why, what ſay you… to our ancient Engliſh hiſtories written in the Latine tongue, to wit, William of Malmsburie, Henrie Huntington, Roger Houedon, Florentius Vigornienſis, and Mathew of Weſtminſter? For I hauehave one argument of no ſmall moment,bB. C. ſtudent in diuinitie, in his Dolefull knell of Thom. Bell, printed 1607. lib. 2. pag 297. commends this for a very excellent argument. (as it ſeemeth to me) taken from them,c N. D. nu. 25. for the ouerthrowing of the fable of Pope Ioane.

PROT.

When liued theſe writers, from whence you draw your argument?

PAP.

The firſt foure liued 500. yeares agone, and the lateſt of them 300. yeares.

PROT.

Fie, 500. yeares agone?dScripſit hiſtoriarum libros ad an. 1142. ſaith, Poſſeuin. apparat. ſac. verbo. Guiliel. Malmſ. but by the book it ſelf (fol. 108.) it is plaine he continued it to the yeare 1143. William Malmsbury cō tinues his ſtorie to the yeare 1143: andeVide hiſtor. l. 8. in fine. Henrie Huntington his ſtorie till the reigne of Henrie the ſecond, which was 1154. andfFol. 464. …. Roger Houedon continues his ſtorie to the yeare 1201. which argues that the firſt foure liued not 500. yeares agone. But what is your argument out of them?

PAP.

No one of them all makes mention of this Pope.

PROT.

Oh, is that your argument? Why, I ſay to that, that our Engliſh hiſtories might omit her vponupon like reaſon as others, of other countries, omitted her for her ſexes ſake, and for the filthineſſe of the fact. And do not you thinke, this probable?

PAP.

No, by no meanes,gN. D. p. 394. For our Engliſh writers aboue others ſhould hauehave mentioned her, if any ſuch had bene.

PROT.

And why, I pray you.

PAP.

hN. D. p. 395.Becauſe king Alfred liuing in Rome when Leo the 4 died, and when Pope Benedict the 3. was choſen, muſt needs hauehave knowne alſo Pope Ioane, if any ſuch had entred and liued two yeares and a halfe betweene them.

PROT.

How know you that king Alfred liued in Rome when Pope Leo died, and Benedict was choſen?

PAP.

iN. D. p. 394.Becauſe we reade that his father deliuered him into the hands of Pope Leo the 4. to be inſtructed, and brought vp by him. And that the Pope receiued him with great kindneſſe, and detained him there with him.

PROT.

That Alfreds father ſent him to be annointed king, and that the Pope annointed him at his fathers motion, we kRoger Houedon. Annal. par… prior. pag. 132. edit. Lond. and Florentius in Chron. ad ann. 853.reade indeed. But that his father deliuered him to Leo to be inſtructed & brought vp by him, we reade not in Malmsbury, nor Huntingtŏ, nor Houedon, nor Florentius: nor yet that the Pope detained him there with him. But perhaps you can proue he ſtaied at Rome, though it be not recorded that Leo detained him with him. Now therefore let me heare your argument.

PAP.

lN. D. p. 395.That Alfred liued in Rome ſome number of yeares, ſeemeth euident. Firſt, for that he returned more learned, and otherwiſe better qualified then any Saxon king had bene before him.

PROT.

This argument is framed out of your fingers ends, and not out of the ſtories. For themHouedo… & Florentius locis citatis. ſtories mention two iournies which Alfred took to Rome: the former, when he was fiue yeares old, in the yeare 853. in which he was accompanied with the nobilitie: the ſecond when he was ſixe yeares old, in the yeare 854, in which he went in his fathers companie, who ſtayed in Rome a yeare. Now though I find it not ſet downe in particular, that he returned with his father: yet it is likely by the circumſtances. FornIn regio Curto ſemper inſeparabiliter nutriebatur, ſaith Florent. lib citato. p. 308. & Ioh. Aſſer Epiſcop. Shyreburnenſis in hiſt. Alfredi. pag. 7. which hiſtory was printed at London 1574. with Tho. Walſingham. the ſtories note, that he was alwayes brought vp in the Kings Court. And it is without all doubt, whenſoeuer he returned, that he returned not better learned, nor better qualified. For at 12 yeares old and vpward, he knew not a letter on the booke… which theoVſque ad 12 aetatis annum, proh dolor, illiteratus permanſit. Aſſer & Florent. loc. cit. ſtories with great griefe report. What is your next argument?

PAP.

pN. D. p. 395.That Alfred liued in Rome ſome number of yeares, ſeemeth euident, for that we find no mention of his acts in England vntill the reigne of his third brother Athebred. vponupon the yeare 871. at the famous battel of Reading in Barkeſhire fought againſt the Danes.

PROT.

Alfred was but 22 yeares old in the yeare 871. and therefore no maruell, though being in England we reade nothing of his acts. Yet, not to ſpeake of his hauking and hunting in England, in his yonger yeares,qMath. Weſtm. Flores hiſt. ad an. 871. fol. 245. whereof the ſtories ſpeake much: werMath. Weſtm. lib. citato. ad an. 868. fol. 236. reade of his mariage three yeares before the battell of Reading, and of his going to aide the King of Mercia the ſame yeare. So that this proceeds of a falſe ground, as doth the former. Wherefore vnleſſe you hauehave better arguments to diſproue the ſtorie of Pope Ioane, you may proue your ſelfe a foole, but neuer it a fable.

PAP.

I am able to proue it a fable.ſN. D. p. 396. For our foreſaid writers do not only not make any mention of Pope Ioane, that came betweene Leo the fourth and Benedict the third: but do expreſly exclude the ſame, by placing the one immediatly after the other, and aſſigning them their diſtinct number of yeares before mentioned, to wit, eight and three moneths to Leo, and two yeares and ſixe moneths immediatly following, to Benedict the third.

PROT.

Who is your firſt witneſſe of the truth of this?

PAP.

tN. D. p. 396. in marg.Malmsbury in Faſtis reg. & Epiſcop. Angl. 847. & 855.

PROT.

Where might a man ſee that booke of Malmsburies? for I neuer read nor heard before of any ſuch booke made by him. True it is, that in the end of Malmsbury, Huntington, Houeden, Ethelwerdus, and Ingulphus, (uAt Frankford anno 1601. which are all printed in one volume) there is ſuch a treatiſe. But that was made by Sir Henry Sauile, who ſet them out. It was not made by Malmsbury. You may as well ſay, that Malmsbury made the Index rerum & verborum, which followes after it. But who is your next witneſſe?

PAP.

xN. D. pag. 396. in margine.Florentius in his Chronicle.

PROT.

Doth Florentius in his Chronicle giuegive eight yeares and three moneths to Leo? Now for ſhame of the world leaue lying. Florentius notes, that Leo began his papacie 853. and Benedict the 3,858: whereby it is apparent, that in Florentius opinion Leo ſate but fiue yeares. So is it apparent, that in his opinion Benedict ſate fiue yeares: for Benedict, according to Florentius reckoning, began 858, and Nicholas his next ſucceſſor began 863. Now from 858. to 863. there cannot be fewer then fiue yeares. So that in proſecuting of this argument, which is of your owne deuiſing, you hauehave ſcarce ſpoken one true word.

PAP.

aFlorim. cap. 30 nu. 4.I pray you tell me how they called this Ioane when ſhe read publickly in the Schooles at Rome?

PROT.

They called her Iohn. How elſe?

PAP.

What? Iohn? and was ſhe called Iohn after her election to the Popedome too?

PROT.

Yea: why not?

PAP.

bFlorim. ibid.Thats not likely, For Sergius a few yeares before had brought in a laudable cuſtome: that the Pope elect ſhould not ſtep out of the Conclaue, before he had changed his proper name.

PROT.

Indeed there arecFaſcic. Temp. ad an. 844. Polyd Virg. de inuent. rerum, lib. 4. cap 10. Ioh. Stella in vit. Pont. in Sergio 2. who ſay, that becauſe Sergius had a filthy name before his election, to wit, the name of Swines-ſnout, he changed it after his election.

PAP.

dFlorim. ibid.Yea, but they who ſay ſo, are greatly deceiued. For Swines-ſnout was not his proper name: but the ſirname of a noble family, whereof he was deſcended.

PRO.

So are they greatly deceiued, who ſay, that he changed his proper name. For, ex paterno nomine à principio Sergius eſt appollatus: from his birth he was called Sergius after the name of his father, aseAnnal tom. 10 ad an. 844. nu. 1. Baronius notes. The firſt who changed his name, was*He would hauehave ſaid Sergius the 4, as appeareth Annal. to. 11. ad an. 1009. Sergius the third, and yet not for the filthineſſe of his name, but in reuerence to S. Peter. Cum enim ille Petrus vocaretur, indignum putauit ſe vocari eodem nomine, quo Chriſtus primum eius ſedis Pontificem, Principem Apoſtolorum, ex Simone Petrum nominauerat. For his name being Peter, he thought it was not meet that he ſhould be called by that name whereby Chriſt called the firſt Biſhop of that Sea, euen the prince of the Apoſtles, whoſe name he changed from Simon to Peter, as we reade in Baronius in the ſame place.

PAP.

I neuer heard this before. But I… like it the better if it be in Baronius. For I cannotfBaronij laudan di ſinem prorſus inuenio nullum Florim. cap. 22. nu 6. ſay too much good of that man. Marry I had rather thought you would hauehave taken exception againſt me, in reſpect that Platina aſcribes this cuſtome of the Popes, in changing their names, to Iohn the 12. who being called Octauian before his Papacie,Non ignoro Plat tinam, qui ſaepius in alijs etiā rebus lapſus eſt, hanc conſuetudinem Ioh. 12. acceptā referre, &c. Florim. cap. 30. nu. 5. thought that name too warlicke for him after he was made Pope, and therefore tooke the name of Iohn. Now I could eaſily hauehave replied vntounto this. For beſides that Platina ſpeakes amiſſe in many other points, it is not likely that Iohn the twelfth made any conſcience by what name he was called, ſeeing he liued as licentiouſly after he was Pope, as before.

PROT.

You hauehave your learning at the ſecond hand. HaueHave you not?

PAP.

I hauehave this out of Florimondus I confeſſe. But what of that?

PROT.

Your Leare-maſters deceiue you, and eſpecially Florimondus. ForgDe vit. Pont. in vita Sergij 2. Platina is one of them who aſcribes the originall of this papall cuſtome to Sergius the ſecond; for which he is reproued by Onuphrius. Onuphrius, and not Platina, aſcribes the originall hereof to Iohn the 12. Iohannem hunc 13. primum eſſe inueni qui nomen in pontificatu mutarit, ſaithhAnnot. in Plat. in vitam Sergij 2 & Ioh. 13. Onuphrius. Nam cum antea Octauianus vocaretur, gentili nomine omiſſo, tanquam parùm maieſtati & religioni pontificis idoneo, ſe Iohannem appellauit: that is, Iohn the 12. was the firſt (as farre as I can learne) who changed his name when he was made Pope. Whereas before he was called Octauian, he left that heatheniſh name, as litle beſeeming the Popes maieſtie and religion, and called himſelfe Iohn.

PAP.

Onuphrius muſt pardon me, though I beleeue him not in this.

PROT.

Yet Onuphrius, iniOnuphrius antiquitatis perſcrutator diligentiſſimus. Flo trim. cap. 21. nu. 6 Florimondus opinion, was a moſt painfull Antiquarie. But what if Baronius ſay as much? will you not beleeue him for Baronius ſake?

PAP.

How can Baronius ſay ſo much, if you wronged him not before, when you told me that he referred this cuſtome of changing names to Sergius the third? If Sergius the third begun it, then not Iohn the twelfth: if Iohn the 12 began it, then not Sergius the third.

PROT.

Looke you and Baronius to that, how both tales will hang together. But aſſure your ſelfe, Baronius ſaith both. For notwithſtanding the former aſſertion, coming to ſpeake of Iohn the 12, hekTo 10. annal. ad an 955. nu. 4. vſeth theſe words, Hic reuera primus inuentus qui mutauit ſibi nomen, vt qui ex Octauiano vocari voluerit Iohannes, pro mutata, non exuta tyrannide. Nam qui dictus eſt à patre, ob temporale vrbis dominiū, Octauianus: obſpirituale, nomine Iohannis appellari idcirco voluit, vel quòd eo nomine eius patruus Iohannes 11 Papaſit appellatus: vel vt in nomine ſaltem benè poſſet audire in adulatorijs acclamationibus, quibus malé vſurpatum proferri ſoleret ſacrum illud eloquium [Fuit homo miſſus à Deo, cuius nomen erat Iohannes:] that is, This (in truth) is the firſt who changed his name, who of Octauian would needs be called Iohn: and not for that he meant to leaue his tyrannie, but for that he reſolued to vſe another kind of tyrannie. For he, who was called by his father Octauian, in reſpect of his temporal authoritie in the citie, would now in reſpect of his ſpirituall be called Iohn, either for that his vncle Iohn the 11. was called ſo, or for that he deſired to heare well, at leaſt for his names ſake, whileſt in clawing and fauning acclamatiōs, the people fondly applied vntounto him that good ſpeech, There was a man that was ſent from God, whoſe name was Iohn. lQuiſnā huius Pſeudopontificis pater, &c? Flor. ca. 8. nu. 5.Thus Baronius. HaueHave you not another queſtion to ask?

PAP.

^e Yes. Who was Pope Ioanes father?

PROT.

What is that to the purpoſe?

PAP.

Much.mAliorum quidem pontificū parentes, vt Lini Cleti, & omniū caeterorum in Annalibus leguntur. Florim. c. 7. nu 5. For the hiſtories expreſly ſet downe, who was the father of Linus, of Cletus, of Clemens, and of all the reſt of the Popes. And would they not hauehave done as much for her, if ſhe had bene Pope?

PROT.

It is falſe, that the hiſtories expreſly ſet down the fathers of all the reſt of the Popes. For by the hiſtories, you cannot tell me, who was the father of Higinus, or Denis, or of Iohn the 19. And that I will proue vntounto you by the hiſtories: for innAnaſtaſ. de vit. Pont. in vita Higini. Polon. in Chr. ad an. 154. them we reade, that Higini genealogia non inuenitur. No man knowes of what parentage Higinus was. And oAnaſtaſ. in vita Dionyſij. Polon. in Chron. ad an. 257.Dionyſii generationem inuenire non potuimus, we could not finde out Denis the Popes Anceſtors. AndpIoh. Stella de vitis Pont. in Ioh 19. ad ann. 999. Iohan. 19. cognomen & patris ignoratur. It is vnknowne of what ſirname, or countrey, Iohn the 19. was. Againe, In theqOnuph. annot. in Plat. in vita vrbani. 4. hiſtories it is expreſly written, that Vrban the fourth was begotten, ex patre ſutore veteramentario: that is, of a Cobler. ThatrPaulus Langius in Chron. citizē. ad ann. 1316. Iohn the 22. was filius veteramentarij, reſarcitoris videlicet ſotelarium. That is, the ſonne of a Botcher. ThatſIdem ad ann. 1303. Benedict the 11. was filius lotricis pauperculae. The ſonne of a poore laundreſſe. ThattPapyrius Maſſonus de vrbis Epiſcopis, l. 6. in Benedicto 12. Benedict the 12. was Molitoris filius: the ſonne of a Milner.uPatre ortus qui ſemper nauticā exercuit. Papyr. Maſſ. lib. cit. in Sixto. 4. That Sixtus the 4. was the ſonne of a Mariner. ThatxOnuph. Addit ad Plat. in vita Adriani. 6. Adrian the 6. was a Clothworkers ſonne, or elſe a Brewers. ThatyCicarellus in vita Sixti 5. Sixtus Quintus was a baſe and beggerly fellowes ſon, euen the ſon, as is ſaid, of a Swincheard. But what the names of theſe mens fathers were, that is not expreſly written. You may peruſe many hiſtories, and find nothing to that purpoſe. Your Alexander the 5,zPapyr. Maſſon. de vrb. Epiſc. lib. 6. in Alex. 5. confeſſed, Se nec parentes, nec fratres, aut aliquem ex agnatis, cognatiſue ſuis vnquam vidiſſe. That he neuer ſaw either his father, or mother, or brother, or any of his kinred. And can you tell me, what was his fathers name?

PAP.

Well Sir, to be briefe with you, I proue it a fable thus: aN. D. nu 35. p. 40 2. and 403.Either this Pope Ioane was yong or old when ſhe was choſen. If ſhe were yong, that was againſt the cuſtome to chuſe yong Popes, as may appeare by the great number of Popes that liued in that dignitie, aboue the number of Emperours that ſucceeded often in their youth. But if ſhe were old when ſhe was choſen, then how did ſhe beare a child publikely in proceſſion, as you heretickes affirme? Anſwer me this: for to this Sutcliffe ſaith nothing in his anſwer to Parſons, as he cals him. And no maruell, for nothing can with any colour be pretended, as B. C. aſſures himſelfe, in hisbLib. 2. p. 303. Dolefull knell of Thomas Bell.

PROT.

I deny the ground of this your reaſon, to wit, That this Pope Ioane was either yong, or old, when ſhe was choſen. ForcDe Galeni ſententia vniuerſae vitae ſex ſunt omnino aetates, Leonard. Fuſchius Inſtitut. Medicin lib. 1. cap. 5. learned men deuide the whole courſe of mans life, not into youth, and old age, as you do: but into pueritiam, pubertatem, adoleſcentiā, iuuentutem, conſtantem, mediamue & ſenectutem. Now middle age is from 35, to 49: whereof ſhe might hauehave bene, and ſo neither old, nor yong: for Leo the 10. was choſen Pope at 38. yeares of age. For he was not 46. yeares of age when he died, and yet he ſate as Pope 8 yeares, 8 moneths, and 20 daies. And Gregorie the 11, fuit dum eligebatur in Papam forſitan circa 35. annos: was about 35 yeares old, aseNem. vnioni… Tract. 6. c. 39. Theodoricus de Niem, andfDe vrbis Epiſcop. lib. 6. in Greg. 11. Maſſonus witneſſe. Againe, ſhe might hauehave bene choſen yong, for any cuſtome you Papiſts hauehave to the contrarie. For Boniface the 9. (as gMaſſon. de vrbis Epiſc. lib. cit: in Bonifac. 9. Plat. in Bonif. 9ſome write) erat annorum 34. dum eligebatur in Papam: was but 34. when he was choſen Pope: andhMaſſon. lib. 3. de vrb. Epiſc. in Innocent. 3. Innocent the 3, was but 30. Yea ſhe might hauehave bene one of the youths of the pariſh: for (not to ſpeake of the boy-Pope: I meane, Benedict the 9,iGlaber Radulphus. hiſt. lib. 5. c. vlt. & Maſſon. l. 4. in Bened. 9. who was choſen Pope about 12 yeares old:) Iohn the 13, alâs 12,kPaulus Langius in Chron. Citizenſe ad an. 1389. In iuuenili & florida aetate creatur Pontifex: was made Pope when he was in his prime: that is, about the 18 yeare of his age, aslAnnal. to. 10. ad an. 955. nu. 3. Baronius gathereth by circumſtances. But why might not ſhe hauehave bene old, ſith we reade, that old women hauehave borne children? Henricus Sueuus Imperator ex vxore quinquagenaria genuit Fridericum 2,mDe vrbis Epiſcop. lib. 5. in Celeſtin. 3. ſaith Maſſonus. Henrie the Emperor begot Fredericke the 2 of his wife, who was fiftie yeares old. Machutus Epiſcopus ortus eſt matre pluſquam Sexagenaria, nin Catal. ſanct lib. 10. cap. 64.ſaith Petrus de Natalibus. Biſhop Machutus his mother was aboue threeſcore yeares old when ſhe bare him. Hîc in Palatinatu ante annos aliquot vidi meis oculis, & vocatus interfui partui cuiuſdam foeminae ampliùs annos 56. natae, quae binos mares enixa eſt eodem partu, oAnnotat Biblicis in Ruth. 1. ed…. vlt.ſaith Franciſcus Iunius. A few yeares ſince, I was intreated to ſee a woman in this countie, aboue fiftie and ſixe yeares old, who was deliuered of two boyes at a birth. N. D. whoſe ſteps you follow, hath one good propertie: for he is alwaies like himſelfe; he is no changeling. He began with lies, and goeth on with fooleries; yet in giuing the reaſon why it was not the cuſtome to chuſe yong Popes, he ſhewes himſelfe moſt foole. For the multitude of Popes aboue the Emperours, came not by reaſon of their age, but by other accidents. In the firſt 300 yeares, while the Popes were generally good, they were cut off by martirdome. For though it be not true, (as pAnnotat. in Plat. in vita Higini.Onuphrius notes wel) that all the Popes from S. Peters time to Sylueſter, were martyrs: which yet is confidently auouched byqBriſtow in his table of Popes. ſome Papiſts: it is true (I grant) that the moſt of them were martyrs. Now in ſucceeding times, their number grew the greater by their poyſoning, and euill entreating one of another. If you peruſe diligently the ſtories of their liues, you ſhall find that of fortie Popes, alreadie dead and gone to their owne place, there was not one that ſate a full yeare: you ſhall finde that within compaſſe of nine yeares, or little aboue,rSee Faſciculus Temp. ad ann. 904. there were nine ſeuerall Popes: you ſhall finde,ſTeſte Bennone Cardinale in vita Hildebrand that one man, in 13. yeares, poyſoned ſixe Popes: you ſhall find, that God in his iuſtice cut them off, for their wicked and abhominable liues.

Liberius ſate about ſome ſixe yeares,tSum. de Eccle. lib 4 part. 1. c. 9. ſaith Cardinal Turrecremata, and then died an euill death. Mala morte precibus ſanctorum extinctus eſt. He died not for age, but with curſing.

Anaſtaſius the ſecond, ſate not two yeares, but God ſtrook him ſuddenly for his naughtineſſe, and he died. Yea he died (ſome ſay) as Arius the arch-heretick died. For, Sunt qui ſcribunt eum in latrinam effudiſſe inteſtina dum neceſſitati naturae obtemperat, ſaithuPlat. in vita Anaſtaſij. 2. Platina, andxDe vit. Pont. ad ann. 498. Iohannes Stella the Venetian. Clemens the 2, kept the Popedome but nine moneths, not for that he was old when he was choſen, but becauſe he was poiſoned, as wenGenebrard. Chronol. lib. 4. ad an. 1046. Aeneas Syluius in Decad. Blond. Epit. lib. 3. reade in your owne writers.

Damaſus the 2,oPlatina in vita Clem. 2. who had a hand in poyſoning this Clemens, kept the papacie but 23 daies, not for that he died of age, but by the iuſt iudgement of God, that he might be an example to others (aspIn vita Damaſ. 2. Supplement. Chro. lib. 12. ad ann. 1042. Ioh. Stella de vit. Pon. …d an. 1040 in Damaſo 2. Platina notes) who clime to that dignitie by briberie, and vnlawful meanes, to which they ſhould aſcend by vertue.

Benedict the ſixth, reigned but a yeare and an halfe, and then died, either of ſtrangling, or famine, in cloſe priſon, as we reade in the ſameqIn vit. Bened. 6 Platina, yea inrAnnal. to. 10. ad an. 974. nu. 1. Baronius.

Victor the 3, kept the papacie but one yeare, and 4 moneths, and died of poyſon, ſayſIn vit. Victor. 3. Platina, tChron. lib. 4. ad ann. 1087.Genebrard, anduIn Sum. Conc. Charanza, andxIn Chron. ad ann. 1095. Polonus.

yPla. in vit. Pij 3Pius the 3, died within a monethmonth, not without ſuſpition of venim.

Iohn the 13, (aliàs 12,)zKran. Metrop. lib. 5. cap. 1. while he was committing adulterie, was ſlaine: whetheraPlatina in vita Ioh 13. Blond. decad. 2. lib. 3. thruſt through by ſome, who tooke him in the act, orbLuitprand. Ti cinenſ. l. 6. c. 11. Sigeber. in Chr. ad an 963. Trith in Chron. Monaſt Hirſaug. ſtriken by the diuell, hiſtorians agree not. But yourcTurrecremat. Sum. de Eccleſ. l. 2. c. 103. & l. 4. c. 9. part. 1. and ſo doth Walthramus Epiſc. Naumburgenſ. Tract de inueſtitura Epiſcopotū. Cardinall takes that as more likely, which is more dreadfull. For becauſe (ſaith he) the life of Pope Iohn was deteſtable, and maruellous offenſiue to the Chriſtian people, therefore Chriſt himſelfe gaue out the ſentence of condemnation againſt him. For while he was abuſing a certaine mans wife, the diuell ſtrooke him ſuddenly into the temple of his head. And ſo he died without repentance.

Boniface the 7, ſate but 7 moneths, and a few odde daies, and then the beaſt died, ſaithdMetrop. lib. 5 c. 1. Krantius.

Marcellus the ſecond liued but 22. daies in the Popedome: not for that he was full of yeares when he died, for he was but 55. yeares old, but for that he was poyſoned. And (which is ſtrange) it iseObijt die 22. non ſine veneni ſuſpicione, quòd nimiùm rectus quibuſdam videretur. Gen…b. Chron. lib. 4 ad ann. 1555. obſerued, that he was poyſoned becauſe ſome thought he would proue an honeſt Pope.

That Sixtus Quintus, after the ſixt yeare of his reigne, was fetcht away by the diuell, by whoſe helpe he came to that place;fIn his declaration made at Vendoſme. Ian. 28. anno 1601. Sir Francis Breton a Monke of the order of the Celeſtines, proteſted, that a Prior of S. Benets order aſſured him at Rome. AndgRelatiō of the Weſtern church by Sir Ed. Sands. they ſay, your Ieſuites report as much vnderunder hand in Italy. But to end this point in a word:hPontifices tanquam monſtra quaedā è medio breui Deus ſuſtulit. Platina in vita Chriſtophori. Paucorum labes ſinceris maculā, & vniuerſ. Eccleſ in famiā ingerit. Et in mea opinione ideo frequentius moriuntur Pontifices ne totam corrumpant Eccleſiam. Ioh. Salisb. de Nugis Curialium. lib. 6. c. 24. your owne men tell vsus in plaine termes, that many Popes were of ſhort continuance, becauſe God ſaw they proued monſters, and ſhamed the true religion: God in his iuſtice would not ſuffer them to liue. And ſo this argument of yeares hath his anſwer.

PAP.

Yea,iN. D. nu. 35. pag. 403. but it is a moſt vnlikely thing, that the whole Romane Clergie would chuſe a Pope without a beard, eſpecially a ſtranger.

PROT.

And why might not the Romane Clergie, as well as the Clergie of Conftantinople (kN. D. nu 28. p. 396. Bell. lib. 3 de Ro. Pon. c. 24. whom you vpbraid with ſuch a fact) do ſuch a deed? eſpecially if all your Clergie in thoſe dayes (as ſome of you write) were ſhauen? For men by ſhauing may make themſelues looke like women, and women by often ſhauing may make themſelues looke like men. Certainly alIohan. Pierias Valerianus pro ſacerdotum barbis. fol. 21. ad Cardinal. Medicen. printed at London in aedib. Tho. Bertholet. anno 1533. learned man among your ſelues, imputes the error of Ioane the womans choice to this, that your Clergie were then ſhauen. For by the meanes of ſhauing (ſaith he) the people were ſo diſguiſed, that men and women were ſcant knowne aſunder. And by this it happened that a woman was choſen Pope of Rome, to the perpetuall rebuke of that ſame holy order. The ſame reaſon is giuen alſo by mLib. 6. de reb. Turcicis.Chalcocondylas. And by it is another of your arguments anſwered, which bynN. D. nu. 35. p. 403. N. D. is touched in theſe words: How did they not diſcerne her to be a woman or an Eunuke, ſeeing ſhe had no beard in her old age? For it being ordinary, that the Clergie ſhould be ſhauen, why ſhould they diſlike her the more for want of a beard?

PAP.

oOnuph. annot. in Plat. in vita Ioh. 8. Florim. cap. 23. pag 197.Yea but was there none, that either by countenance or voice, or other actions of her, could diſcerne the fraud?

PROT.

Looke you to that. But this is ſure, if your ſtories be true, that diuers women hauehave liued longer among men in mens apparell vnknowne, then dame Ioane liued in the Popedome. For Marina (pRauiſ. Textor in officina. Tit. Mulieres habitū virilem mentitae. they ſay) liued all her life among Monkes, and no body knew but ſhe was a Monke.qIbid. & Pet. de Natal. in Catal. ſanc. lib. 3. c. 113. Euphroſina liued 36 yeares amongſt Monkes, and was reputed for a Monk. So didrVitas Patrum. lib. 1. Pet. de Natal. lib. 2. cap. 3. Pet. de Natal. in Catal. ſanct. lib. 9. cap. 36. & 37. Eugenia, Pelagia, and Margareta, and no man ſuſpected them of fraud.

PAP.

ſN. D. pag. 402.Yea, but how happened it, her owne louers had not diſcouered or her incontinent life?

PROT.

That her louers did not diſcouer her, it is no wonder. For partners in miſchiefe, are good at concealements. As for her incontinent life, that diſcouered her at length. God, according to histIob 12. 22. promiſe, bringing forth the ſhadow of death to light, that is, making knowne her ſecret naughtineſſe.

PAP.

uOnuph. loco. citato. N. D. pag. 402.Yea, but how could ſhe paſſe through prieſthood, and other Eccleſiaſticall orders? how by ſo many vnderunder-offices, and degrees, as they muſt before they come to be Popes, without deſcrying? xOnuph ibid.For 900 yeares from S. Peter, no man was choſen Pope, that was not brought vp in the Romane Church, and paſſed through prieſthood, and other Eccleſiaſticall orders.

PROT.

Thats not ſo. ForyPlatina in vita Dionyſij. Dionyſius was made Pope of a Monke: andzIdem in vita Valentini. Ʋalentinus in the time of his Deaconſhip, before he was prieſted. And ſo wasaIdem in vita Bened. 5. Benedict the fift too. And as forbGeneb. Chron. lib. 4. ad an. 963. Annal to. 10 ad an 999. nu. 2. Leo the eight, he was choſen being but a lay man: Per Othonem 1. homo laicus Leo intruſus eſt, ſaith Baronius. Your ownecChronol. lib 4. ad an. 398. Genebrard did note, that this Note of Onuphrius was worth nothing: yea that it was falſe, as many other of his notes are.

PAP.

dBell. l. 3 de Ro Pont cap. 24.Yea but Polonus and others ſay, that this Ioane brought forth a child as ſhe went in proceſſion. Now it is not credible, that a woman who had gone ſo many moneths with child, would then eſpecially go abroad when there was moſt feare ſhe might be diſcouered.

PROT.

This is like the reſt. For the time of child-birth is vncertaine. For though women go vſually ten moneths, yet ſometimes they come ſooner, at nine or eight, yea at ſeuen moneths, aseLeuinus Lem…ius de occultis … miraculis lib. 4. cap. 22, … 23. Phyſitians hauehave obſerued. Honeſter women then Pope Ioane, hauehave fallen in trauell vponupon the high way, ere euer they were aware, that they were ſo neare their reckning, as Theophilact obſerueth: for nouit mulier quòd pariet, quando verò, non nouit, ſaithf… he: Nam non paucae 8 menſe pepererunt etiam in itinere, nihil praeſcientes: that is, A woman knowes ſhe ſhall be deliuered, but the time ſhe knowes not: for diuers hauehave bene deliuered in their eighth monethmonth, as they hauehave bene in their iourneys, neuer dreaming of any ſuch thing towards. What is your next exception?

PAP.

g…. cap. 23. ….They ſay, ſhe was buried without any ſolemnities in the world. And how is that credible, ſeeing it is a barbarous and ſauage part, to depriue them of the honour of ſolemne buriall, which hauehave borne the greateſt offices?

PROT.

Is it ſo? Do we not reade in Scripture, that God in his iuſtice doth vſe to ſerue the greateſt princes ſo, who diſhonour him? Do we not reade, thathIer. 22. 18. 19. Iehoiachim king of Iudah was to be buried as an aſſe is buried? &c. Yea, do we not reade in ſome of your owne ſtories, that ſome of your Popes hauehave had as ſmall ſolemnities? Bonifacius 7. poſt mortem Ioh. 15. ſedit menſes 4. repentina morte interijt, & in tantum eum odio habuerunt ſui, vt poſt mortem caederent eum, & lanceis vulnerarent, atque per pedes traherent nudato corpore vſque ad campum quieſt ante caballum Conſtantini; ibi proiecere eum atque dimiſerunt, ſaithiAnnal. to. 10. ad an. 985. è veteri Pontif. Vaticano codice. Baronius. Boniface the 7. who ſate after Iohn the 15. foure moneths, died a ſudden death: and he was ſo hateful to his owne followers, that after his death they beate him, and ranne him into the body with lances, and dragged him by the feete, all naked, till they came to the field which is neare the place where Conſtantines horſe ſtands; there they threw him from them, and there they left him.

PAP.

k… cap. 2, …Yea, but it was neuer heard of before, nor neuer in vſe among Chriſtians, to burie a man in the high wayes.

PROT.

No? Is it not written, thatl… Deborah, Rebeckahs nourſe, was buried vnderunder an Oke? and thatm… Rahel, Iacobs wife, a farre honeſter woman then Pope Ioane, was buried in the way to Ephrath? though if it had not, yet Pope Ioane was but right ſerued to be buried ſo: for it was neuer heard of before, nor neuer in vſe among Chriſtians, that a Pope ſhould be deliuered of a child. The extraordinarineſſe of the caſe, deſerued extraordinary exemplary vſage. Your friend Papyrius Maſſonus, *Papyr. Maſſo: vir praeſtans ingenio & pietate.much commended by your Cardinall nTo. 10. Annal. ad an. 853. nu. 62Baronius, oDe vrb. Epiſc. lib. 3. in Bened. …holds opinion, that if there had bene any ſuch Pope, the Romanes could hauehave done no leſſe (in equitie) then to hauehave hanged her vp in chaines after her death. Becauſe he finds not that ſhe was ſhamefully enough handled after her death, he denies the ſtory.

PAP.

Papyrius Maſſo is a worthy man indeed.*Vltimo ſupplicio affeciſſent. Vt ventus fumum, euaneſcere totam in auras fabulam fecit: he hath diſproued this tale throughlypLoco citato. in Baronius iudgement. But yet I thinke with Florimondus, they ſhould hauehave allowed her Chriſtian burial: they ſhould hauehave made her a tombe: they ſhould hauehave written Epitaphs on her.

PROT.

What? Epitaphs on ſuch a whore? That had bene a ieaſt indeed. Yet perhaps ſome mad-cap did ſo. And how proue you the contrary?

PAP.

If ſhe had had a tombe made for her, and Epitaphs on her they would hauehave bene forth coming. For asqLoco citato. Florimondus writes, Sepulchrorum nunquam intermoritur memoria: Tombeſtones continue for euer.

PROT.

Indeed I hauehaverPolyd. Virg. de inuent. rerum. lib. 6. cap. 10. read, that by law it was prouided, that no man ſhould deface Tombe-ſtones. And I hauehaveſBellonius lib. 2 obſeruat. cap. 6. read alſo, that to this day, hard by Troy, videre licet magna marmorea ſepulchra operis antiqui ex vno lapide, inſtar ciſtae, excauata, quorū opercula adhuc integra ſunt: a man may ſee many marble ſepulchres, wrought after the old faſhion, cut hollow, like a cheſt, out of one ſtone, the couers whereof are ſtill whole. But I do not reade, that men can ſhew, which was Priamus his graue, which Hectors, &c. Yet but for euill fingers, I could hauehave told you where Pope Ioanes tombe was. Til Pius Quintus caſt it into Tiber, it was to be ſeene in Rome.

PAP.

They ſay further, that ſhe died inſtantly. But though the paines of women be great at ſuch times, yet it comes by thro…, they hauehave ſome intermiſſion: their paine is not like to a ſudden Apoplexy, on which they die inſtantly.

PROT.

Men do not die inſtantly who are taken with an Apoplexie, they may liue long after, and be cured thereof astFelix Platerus Archiater Baſil. Pract c. 1. p. 46. edit. Baſil. 1608. Phiſitions ſay. Your Florimondus herein is out of his element. Neither did ſhe die inſtantly, though it ſeemes ſuddenly. For ſhe was deliuered of a boy before her death.

PAP.

Was ſhe deliuered of the boy wherewithall ſhe went? and what was then the cauſe of her death? Florimondus accounts this as one of the abſurdities which followes on this tale. Imò, vt aiunt, (uPag. 205. ſaith he) maſculum pepererat, quid igitur mortem repentinam attulit? If a woman be once deliuered of the fruite of her wombe, there is no danger of death in his opinion.

PROT.

Commend me to him, if euer you ſee him. And aske the Woodcocke, if he hauehave not knowne women die in child-bed, as well as in child-birth.xGen. 35. 17. 18 Rahel was deliuered of her ſon Beniamin, and yet died ſhortly.y1. Sam. 4. 20. 21. Phineas wife was deliuered of her ſonne Ichabod, and yet died preſently after. And if they died ſo: why not Pope Ioane? I pray you let me heare what exceptions ſome wiſer men take againſt this ſtory. For I am wearie of Florimondus fopperies.

PAP.

zN. D. of 3. Cō uerſ. part. 2. c. 5. nu. 36. Florim. p 202. Bell. l. 3. de Ro. Pont. c. 24.How is ſhe ſaid to hauehave gone from the pallace of S. Peter to S. Iohn Lateran, whereas the Popes lay not then in the Vatican, but at S. Iohn Lateran it ſelfe?

PROT.

How proue you that the Pope lay not then in the Vatican?

PAP.

aFlorim. loco citato.Platina witneſſeth that the Popes lay not in the Ʋatican till Boniface the 9. his dayes, to wit, till the yeare 1350.

PROT.

Boniface the ninth, liued in the yeare 1390. not 1350. wherefore in that circumſtance you faile. And ſo you do in fathering ſuch a fancie vponupon Platina. ForbIn vita Bonif. 9 Platina reports onelyonly that the Vatican was repaired by Boniface the ninth. He ſaith not, it was firſt inhabited by Boniface the 9. though if he had, yet the Pope might well hauehave gone to ſee the Lateran; for he had other houſes to ſolace himſelfe, and his Courtiers in, beſides the Lateran. He dwelt not alwaies in that: forcDe vitis Pontif in vita Greg. 4. Gregory the fourth, made two goodly houſes euen out of the ground, for the Popes vſe, as your Anaſtaſius teſtifieth. And Leo the 3. (as we reade in the ſamedIn vita Leon Anaſtaſius) made another goodly houſe neere to S. Peters Church, which ſtands in the Vatican,eIdem in Leone. 4. wherein Leo the fourth gaue entertainment to Ludouike the Emperour. But beſides, the ſtories do not report ſhe went from S. Peters pallace to the pallace of the Lateran: but from S. Peters Church to the Lateran Church. For ſhe was deliuered as they went in proceſſion. Now ſhe might go from S. Peters Church to the Lateran Church, and yet dwell in the pallace by the Lateran. For Popes began not alwaies their proceſſions at the next Church to them.fPlatina in vita Leon. 3. & Anaſtaſ. de vit. Pont. in Leone 3. Leo the third appointed to go in proceſſion three ſeuerall daies before aſcenſion day. And he began the firſt day, at one of S. Maries Churches, and ended at Saint Sauiours Church. The ſecond day he began at Saint Sabina the martyrs Church,*Eccleſia Dei genitricis ad praeſepe. and ended at S. Pauls. The third day he began at S. Croſſes Church in Ieruſalem, and ended at S. Lawrences without the wals. So that this queſtion of yours is anſwered. Let me know if you hauehave any more to ſay.

PAP.

You ſhall: and firſtaBaron. Annal. to. 10. ad ann. 853. nu. 67. I will proue it a fable out of their own mouthes that report it.

PROT.

Thats a peece of cunning in good earneſt. But how I pray you?

PAP.

Marry, euen asbMarke 14. 59. Saint Marke the Euangeliſt proued the Iewes liers, by the inconuenience of their teſtimonies.

PROT.

What meane you by the inconuenience of their teſtimonies?

PAP.

Their diſagreeing one from another.

Pope Joan, Dialogue (2 of 3)