Pope Joan

WEll met, and welcome home Sir. What new book have you brought us down from London this Mart?

Oh, I have an excellent book, which discourseth at large about Pope Joan, whose Popedom you cast in the Catholics teeth so often̄.

What language is it in, I pray you? French? or Latin? or English? and who made it?

It was first written in French, but I have it in Latin. The Author of it is one Florimondus Raemondus.

Florimondus Raemondus? what is he, that I never heard of him before? Is he, and his book, of any credit?

He himself is reputed a very famous man for life and learning, so that, at this present he is one of the French Kings Council at Burdeux; and as for his book, it is of wonderful esteem.

With whom I pray you?

Even with Cardinal Baronius. For he holds it the worthiest discourse that ever was made of that argument; He professeth, that he could have found in his heart to have inserted it into his Annals, but that it is somewhat too large. For by it as the Cardinal further noteth, he hath so confounded all the pack of Heretics, who heretofore upbraided the Catholics with it, that now they are ashamed of that which they have said,

But hath any man else the like opinion of it?

Yea marry, Posseuin is of the same mind. For Posseuin saith, that he hath killed the heretics outright. That since the publishing of that book the heretics are whisht, they dare talk no more of a Pope Joan.

This is much: but have you read it?

Read it? Yea I have read it again and again. Besides, I have compared it with that which is written of the same argument, by Buchingerus in Germany: by Charanza in Spain: by Onuphrius, and Bellarmine, and Baronius, in Italy: by Turrian, and Bernartius in Belgium: by Pontacus in Aquitania: by Genebrard, and Papyrius Massonus, in France: by Sanders, by Cope, by Harding, by Father Parsons, and others of our own country.

And what say you now (after the reading of all these) to the story of Pope Joan, tell me in good earnest, and dissemble not.

I say, the very truth is, that the whole story of Pope Joan, is a fable; a fond and vain fable, a mere fable, an heretical fable, a ridiculous fiction: and so known to the learneder sort of Protestants among you, but that you will not leave to delude the world with it, for lack of other matter. Yea I say further, there are so many improbabilities, and moral impossibilities in this tale, as no man of any mean judgment, discretion, or common sense, will give credit thereto: but will easily see the vanity thereof. And in a word, I say, he was a knave that devised it, and he is fool who believeth it.

Now this is excellent in good truth: I see there is metal in you. But what reason have you on your side, that you are so peremptory? Did it not run for currant without controlment till within these forty years, or thereabout: to wit, till the year 1566, that Onuphrius the Frier began to bogle at it? Was not Onuphrius the first, that ever by reason sought to discredit the report of it? And yet doth not even he confess, that many men of worth, as well as of ordinary sort, believed it for a truth? Is it not to be found in Marianus Scotus, in Sigebert, in Gotefridus Viterbiensis, in Johannes de Parisiis, in Martinus Polonus, in Petrarch, in Boccace, in Ramulsus Cestrensis, in Johannes Lucidus, in Alphonsus e Carthagena, in Theodoricus de Niem, in Chalcocondilas, in Platina, in Palmerius, in Nauclerus, in Sabellicus, in Trithemius, in Volateran, in Bergomensis, in Schedel, in Laziardus, in Fulgosus, in Textor, in Gassarus, in Mantuan, in Crantius, in Charanza, and a number moe of your own faction, and of your own friends? of which some were Grecians, some Italians, some Spaniards, some French, some Germains, some Polonians, some Scots, some English; and yet never a one of them a Lutheran. Yea do we not find it in some of your stories set down in pictures? And is not so much to be gathered by that image of hers, which is set up amongst the rest of the images of the Popes in the renowned church of Siena in Italy, and is to be seen there at this day: which the Bishop of that place would not suffer to be defaced at the last repairing of that Church, though your Jesuits did earnestly request him to deface it? Was there not made of old (for fear of such like after-claps) a stool of easement, on which they were set at their creation, for proof of their humanity? Was there not a marble image set up as a monumēt thereof in that place where she miscarried? to wit, in one of the chiefest streets in Rome? which monument was to be seen likewise within these few years, even in Pius the 5. his time. And is it not written by men among yourselves, that your Popes, when they go in procession, refuse to go through that street, in detestation of that fact, and go further about? How say you, is it not even thus?

It is written (I confess) that our Popes, in detestation of that fact, whē they go in procession to the Lateran Church, refuse to go through that street: but they who write so, mistake the matter. For the true reason why they turn out of that street, which is the nearer way, is, for that, that street is angusta & anfractuosa, a narrow street, and such a one as winds this way and that way: and in that respect, unfit for so great atraine, as ordinarily accompanies the Pope to pass orderly through: as Onuphrius, and Bellarmine, and Florimondus, have observed.

Say you so? why, but if it be true which Philippus Bergomensis hath storied, this observation is false: for Eo omisso ( ^c saith he) speaking of the Popes turning out of that place of the street, wherein Dame Joan was delivered) declina ad diuerticula, vicos{que} & sic, loco detestabili postergato, reintrantes, iter perficiunt quod coeperunt: that is, Leauing that way, they turn into by-lanes and by-streets; & as soon as they are beyond that detestable place, they turn into their way again, and so go on in their procession. For if upon their leaving that street, they enter into by-lanes and by-streets, and as soon as they are past that ominous place turn in again; the reason why they leave that street cannot be, for that it is narrow, and winding in and out. For no question, but those by-lanes, are as narrow: and by their turning out, and returning into the same way again, they wind as often in and out, as if they went along through the same street, though it were very crooked. But howsoever, shift it among you: for it sufficeth me, that you cannot deny, but that which I told you concerning this point, is written by men of your own religion: especially seeing Platina, who knew Rome well enough, and was desirous to cover the Popes nakedness herein, as much as he could with any honesty, confesseth, that this is probable enough. What have you to say to the rest of my speech?

Much. For whereas you say Onuphrius was the first who by reason sought to discredit the report of it: that is not so. Johannes de Columna a good writer of Chronicles, long before Onuphrius, hath likewise utterly rejected the vanity of this fable as D. Harding noteth.

Johannes de Columna his history is extant in Latin in the University library at Oxford: and in French, in New College library. But there is not one word, good, or bad, for, or against Pope Joan in it. If he rejected it, he rejected it by silence.

But Johannes Auentinus, rejected it in plain words. And he wrote a good many years before Onuphrius.

Johannes Auentinus (I grant) rejects it as a fable in one word, but he gives no reason of his rejecting of it. Besides, Bellarmine casts him off as a writer of small credit: and Baronius brands him, not merely for a skabd sheep, but for an heretical skabby beast, destitute both of honesty and learning: and diverse of your Popes have cried down his history, as unworthy of reading; wherefore I see no reason, that his reason-less rejecting of it, doth any way prejudice the truth of it. What have you else to say?

First I would know who told you there was such a marble image in one of the streets at Rome?

Theodoricus de Niem, who was Secretary to one of your Popes, told me that: for Adhuc vetus statua marmorea illic positafiguratiue monstrat hoc factum, saith Theodoricus de Niem: that is, Unto this day an old marble image erected in that place showeth the matter under a figure.

Indeed I cannot deny but that in former ages many have said so, and (to confess a truth) I myself have read as much in Antoninus Archbishop of Florence, and in Peter Mexia. But verily that image resembled no such thing. For neither was it like a woman lying in child-bed, nor was the boy which was graven by her, like a child in the swaddling clouts, but like one of some years.

This your exception is to no purpose; for that age was a learn-less and a witless age. And therefore perhaps had no more skill in grauing, caruing, and painting, then they had, who were driven to set either under, or above their pictures, Hoc est bos: illudequus: hoc arbor: that men might know what kind of creature it was that they had painted. Questionlesse Aeneas Sylvius, pointing to a better time then that of Pope Joan’s, condemns the painters and carvers thereof for notorious bunglers, saying thus; Si ducētorum, trecentorúmue annorum, aut sculpturas intu • beris, aut picturas: inuenies non hominum, sed monstrorum portentorum{que} facies: that is, If thou observe the graven or painted images which were made two or three hundred years agone, thou shalt find, that they are faced more like monsters, and hobgoblins, then men. Now if they were such, what marvel, though intending to ingraue a woman traveling, or rather newly delivered of a child, they did it but untowardly? But what I pray you doth that Image represent, if it represent not Pope Joan?

Cardinal Bellarmine seems to like of their opinion, who guess that some heathenish priest, who was about to offer sacrifice, and had his man before him, is denoted thereby. But I am rather of Florimondus mind, who thinks it was an idol, even an image of some of the gods of the heathen.

If it had represented a sacrificing priest, and his man: the man should have been graven behind, and not before his master. For the servant followeth his master, as the young man that bare Jonathan's armor, followed Jonathan, wherefore you have reason to leave Bellarmine in this. But why do you incline to Florimondus? doth he give you any reason for this opinion? or alledgeth any Author of his opinion?

Yes, he professeth, that he followeth Onuphrius therein, who was a most diligent Antiquary.

But he lies in that. For Onuphrius speaks not one word good or bad of this marble Image. He passeth it over in silence, as though no man had ever spoken of it.

I marvel if that be so. But yet I rest persuaded upon Florimondus next reason, that that Image resembled not Pope Joan. For if the ingrauer had purposed to express such a matter, and to continue thereby the memory thereof to the worlds end, he would have set some inscription over it; for so do all men who erect monuments for remembrances.

That is not so, for we read in Eusebius, that the woman who was cured by our Savior Christ of her issue of blood, &c. erected (after the custom of the heathen) an image of him, no doubt for remembrance sake. But we read of no inscription written upon it. In the book of Joshua we read, that the Israelites were commanded to lay 12. stones upon an heap, as a memorial unto their children forever. And yet it is plain by the circumstances they set nothing thereon in writing. When you paint S. Peter, you paint him with keys in his hand, and set no inscription over his head, nor under his feet, as Baronius confesseth. Wherefore for anything I yet hear, it is most probable that it was set up for a monument of Pope Joan.

Enioy your conceit. But I can tell you one thing. That image is now removed out of that place. For Sixtus Quintus, that great builder and mender of high ways, when he made that street straight, wherein that image was, was forced to remove that Image.

Belike, that image would have been some blemish unto the street, if it had remained: and that made him move it.

Yea marry would it.

Now well fare his heart that was so careful to rid the streets of such a cumbersome monument. But who told you that Sixtus Quintus removed it vpō that occasion?

Florimondus.

Was it he? Then know him for a liar whilst you live: for it was Pius Quintus, and not Sixtus Quintus, who removed it. And Pius Quintus removed it, and cast it into Tiber, not for that it disgraced the street: but vt memoriam historiae illius aboleret: that he might extinguish the memory of that shameful act. And this is witnessed not only by some travelers, who were at that time in Rome; but by Elias Hassenmuller, one (once) of your fiery order of Jesuits. Your Florimondus will not deserve (I fear) half the commendation you have given him.

I doubt not but he will acquit himself like a man, of whatsoever you can say against him. But whence had you that of the stool of easemēt, I pray you? for in Bellarmine I read, that de seed ad explorandum sexū nulla vsquam mentio. Of a stool of easement, to try the Popes sex, there is nowhere any mention: and in Onuphrius, that it is but a mere toy, and an idle conceit of idle people.

That of the stool of easement, is recorded by Philippus Bergomensis, a man of great worth in his time as Trithemius witnesseth. For upon mention made of Pope Joan’s story, Ad euitandos similes errores statutum fuit ( saith he) ne quis de caetero in B. Petri collocaretur seed, priusquam per perforatam sedem futuri Pontificis genitalia ab vltimo Diacono Cardinale attrectarentur. That is, For avoiding like error in future times, it was decreed: that no man should be held for Pope, till the youngest Cardinal Deacon had found by trial, while he sat upon a stool of easement, that he was a man. which is likewise testified by Laonicus Chalchondylas. For upon relation of that story, he goes on thus: Quapropter ne decipiantur iterum, sed rem cognoscant, neque ambigant: Pontificis creati virilia tangunt, & qui tangit, acclamat: Mas nobis Dominus est: that is, Lest they should be deceived again, they make proof by feeling; and he that feeleth makes it known by crying out; We have a man Pope. And you may find as much in a later Papist, who within these few years, writ a book of the Harmonie of Romish magistrates, and in it this.

You say true indeed. For I now remember Florimondus confesseth so much, yet he reproveth the Author for writing so. But let us go on: for I long to hear of whom you heard that such a chair was to be seen, in the Popes palace, within these few years.

I heard that of Sabellicus. For writing of the same matter, Spectatur adhuc in Pontificia domo marmorea sella (saith he) circa medium inanis, qua nonus Pontifex continuo ab eius creatione resedit, vt sedentis genitalia ab vltimo Diacono attrectentur. That is, There is to be seen at this day in the Popes palace, a chair of marble, wherein the new Pope presently upon his election is set down, that as he sits, the lowest Deacon may make trial of his humanity by touching. And you may find as much in William Brewin, who lived in the year 1470. for in Capella Saluatoris (saith he) sunt duae vel plures cathedrae de lapide marmoreo & cubio, cum for aminibus in ijs sculptis, super quas cathedras, vt audiui ibidem, est probatio Papae, vtrùm sit masculus, an non. That is, In the chapel of our Savior there are two or three marble chairs with holes in them, wherein, as I heard there, they make proof whether the Pope be a man or no.

Florimondus acknowledgeth there is yet such a chair, wherein the Popesits after his election. But that he sits therein to such an end as you speak, that he utterly denies.

And what is his reason?

Because he sits therein not in a corner, but in the great Church of S. John Laterā, whither all the world (almost) comes to see him; where he is attended by the whole College of Cardinals, and whereat there are many Ambassadors of kings and Princes: for a closer place were fitter for such a purpose. They might more conveniently have made trial of his humanity in the conclaue where he was chosen.

And so they did, it seems: for presently upon their electing of him before they proclaimed him Pope, they set him in a chair in their conclaue, as you may read in the book of holy ceremonies dedicated to Leo the 10. Whereby you may see how idly Bellarmine talks, who taking upon him to clear the point, never speaks of his sitting in the chair in the conclaue, but only of his sitting in certain other chairs at S. John Laterans, as though he had been chaired only in public, and not in private: and that he himself had said sufficiently to the point in question, by proving that in public there was no such conclusiō tried with the Pope: whereas the conclusion was tried in secret. But can you tell me what the end is why the Pope sits in such a chair in public?

Marry to the end that thereby he may be put in mind, that he is not God, but man: in as much as he stands in need of a close stool as well as others: for so saith Florimondus.

I promise you and he had need to be put in mind thereof. For though some Papists shamefully deny it, there have been popish clawbackes, who in plain words have termed the Pope, as S. Thomas termed Christ: their Lord and God: and there are still who give him such titles as are due to God, and ascribe like power to him and God. But me thinks, they should not need to have set him in such a chair to such a purpose; for his own necessity would have driven him to set himself thereon ordinarily every day: and his chamber-pot would have served to put him in mind of his humanity sufficiently. For Antigonus the elder knew by that, that he was man and not a God, as Plutarch writeth. Besides, me thinks they should not have intended such a mystery by such a ceremony, because they set him therein before he was in his pontificalibus: for till he be mitred, till he be crowned, till he have received the keys, whereby is denoted his power to bind and loose: and a rod, whereby is denoted his power to punish the obstinate: me thinks there should be no fear of forgetting himself. For till such ceremonies be performed, he is not in his ruffe. Again, had it not been better think you, if they had aimed at any such mark, to have caused a boy to come every morning unto the Popes chamber door (after the example of Philip king of Macedonia) who should have whoopt him out of his bed, and bid him remember, that he was mortal?

If you like not Florimondus conjecture touching that ceremony, what say you to Bellarmine's, which is: That he is set on such a stool, to signify how he is raised from base estate, to supreme honor?

I say Bellarmine's conjecture is as improbable, and fond as Florimondus. For your Popes, since Pope Joan’s days, have been chosen for the most part out of the number of your Cardinals. And your Cardinals estate is not so base, as that he who is advanced from that unto the Papacie, can be truly said, to be taken in any sort from off a close stool. For they are generally Princes fellows. Yea some of them (you cannot but know) have not been ashamed to prefix their own names before their own kings, using these words: I and my king. Wherefore unless you can render me some better reason, why your Popes are set on such a seat, I shall remain persuaded that in former times it was for proof of their humanity, upon the accident aforesaid.

Enioy your opinion for me. But where read you that there was such an Image in the Church of Siena, which the Jesuits would have defaced, but that the Bishop of the place would not suffer them?

That I have heard by many travelers, and read in master Bel; both in his book of Motiues concerning the Romish religion, and in his Survey of Popery: whereunto never a Papist of you all dare answer.

Yes we dare, though we do not. But I can tell you news. That Image of Pope Joan, which was set up in the Church of Siena, is cast down by the commandment of Clement the 8. by the means of Caesar Baronius, at the request of Florimondus. Caesar Baronius hath certified Florimondus so much by a letter, and for joy, Florimondus hath published it unto the world.

What? is that Image cast down too? Florimondus might do well, to make request to the present Pope, that those books which write of Pope Joan may be burned; in hope, that the present Pope will as readily burn the books, as Clement the 8. threw down that Image, and Pius Quintus the other. And so in time to come, when all evidences are imbezeled, and all monuments defaced, and made out of the way, it will be a plain case there was never any Pope Joan.

Oh! this angers you I perceive. And yet why should you be angry at the throwing down of this? For suppose it had stood still, is there any sense that because of such an Image, we should be bound the rather to believe there was such a Pope? I can tell you if we believe Painters and carvers we may soon mar all: for in Saint Andrew's Church at Burdeux, one of the excellentest Churches in all France, our Savior Christ is described ascending up to heaven upon the back of a flying Eagle: which stands not well with the Scripture.

That's true, if we believe your painters and carvers, we shall soon mar all indeed. For we find the Trinity painted by you, sometimes in the likeness of a man with three faces: sometimes in the likeness of a man, with two heads, having a dove between thē; both which fashions of painting the Trinity, are monstrous in Bellarmine's opinion. We find our Savior Christ painted with long hair, as though he had been a Nazarite by vow: which conceit is controlled by Scripture. We find him set on a weathercocke upon the top of the Temple of Jerusalem, as though that Temple had had a spire steeple like ours: which is neither so, nor so. We find the virgins Marie treading on the Serpents head, which the Scriptures foretold, that Christ himself should do. We find her set out in a gown of wrought gold: whereas (no question) she was meanly appareled: and with a pair of Beads in her hand, whereas of a thousand years after Christ there were no Beads in the world. In like sort we find Moses painted with two horns; John the Baptist, in a raw Camels skin; John the Evangelist, like a beardles boy, when he writ his Gospel; c Marie Magdelen in a loose gown; S. Jerome in his Cardinals robes: all which is false as God is true. Besides, your painters recōmend unto us a Saint on horseback, whom they call George. And another Saint on foot, as big as a Giant, whom they call Christopher: and a she Saint, broken upon a where, whom they call Catharin: and a fourth drawn in pieces with horses, whom they call Hippolitus: whereas in all antiquity, there is no mention of any such Saints. So that you never spoke a truer word in your life, then this, that if we believe painters and carvers, we shall soon mar all. But what if book proof concur with painting and caruing? may we not then without fear of marring all, give credit to painters and carvers? your Bellarmine is of opinion that there can be no error in substance, as long as besides book-proof, there be monuments of stone, or of brass, for the proof of any ancient report. And if he speak the words of truth, the truth is with us; for besides monuments of stone, we have the testimonies of many writers.

But not so many as you brag of, I believe. And besides, those you have are but paltrie writers.

That shall be seen by a more particular view of them. Wherefore first, what say you to Charanza, the last of them whom I named, who was a ah divinity reader among you, & afterwards Archbishop of Toledo in Spain? was he a paltrie writer? or hath he not this story, in your opinion?

I think he hath it not. For Florimondus names Charanza, among them who disproved the story of Pope Joan, before he himself fell to disprove it.

Doth he so? doubtless then he belies Charanza. For this is all that Charanza writes of that argument. lohannes 8. Papa. 105. sub Petro, sedit An. 2. men's. 1. dies 4. De hoc ferunt, quod malis artibus pontificatum adeptus est, quoniam cum esset foemina, sexum mentitus est; & postea à seruo compressa, doloribus circūnenta, mortua est. Which in english is this. John the 8. the 105. Pope from S. Peter, sat 2. years 1. month, and 4. days. They report of this person that he got the Papacy by evil means, because he feigned himself to be a man, whereas in truth he was a woman; who being afterwards begot with child by one of her servants, fell in travel and died thereon. And this is not disprouing of it. Is it trow you?

No verily if he say no more of it, but perhaps he saith more, and you conceal it from me?

Not a word I warrant you. Wherefore let us go on, and observe, who, and what manner of men the rest are, who bear witness with us in this case. What say you to Krātius? hath he not this story? or is he but a paltry writer?

Krantius is commended by Pontanus, for a famous historiographer. And seeing he wrote before Luther's days there is no reason ( as Bellarmine notes upon another occasion) that he should be suspected to write anything for love or hatred. But hath he this story?

Yea. For these are his own words. Johannes Anglicus, ex Moguntia mulier, mentita sexum, quum acutissimo ingenio & promptissima lingua doctissme loqueretur, adeo inse conuertit omnium animos, vt pontificatum adipisceretur, vno famulo sexum eius cognoscente, à quo compressa pregnans efficitur: & fertur peperisse apud Colosseum An. 2. necdum expleto, in partu moritur: which in effect sounds thus: John English, a woman of Mainz dissembled her sex, and being of a quick wit and glib tongue; & one that could speak very scholerlike, she won the hearts of all men, that she got the Papacie, no man knowing any other but that she was a man, save one of her servants, who afterwards got her with child. They say she was delivered near the Colosses, before she had sitten full two years. Thus Krantius.

And hath Mantuan the same, whom you cited next before Krantius?

Yea Mantuan, who is commended by Trithemius for a great Divine, an excellent Philosopher, and a famous Poet, the only man in all Italy in his time: Mantuan, at whom the people pointed as he went in the streets, and said, This is he; which was wont to be held a matter of extraordinary credit. Mantuan, of whom Picus Mirandula, Pontanus, Beroaldus, Baronius, Posseuin, and diverse others, give honorable testimony. This Mantuan hath this story. For, falling to describe hell, and what manner of persons were in hell,

You say right: for I remember now that Florimondus confesseth the tale is in Mantuan. But Mantuan deserves no credit in this: for he writes worse of her then ever any did before him: and feignes, very ridiculously, that her horsekeeper who got her with child, and she were both hangd together.

Mantuan talks of no horsekeeper of hers, but in general of one who committed adultery with her, nor of any hanging, save of their hanging in hell, which is likely enough to be true. Your Florimondus can lay his finger upon nothing, but he grimes it. He can comment upon no man's words, but he wrests them. There is not a word in Mantuan more (concerning her) then that which is comprehended in the three verses cited.

At better leisure I will examine your words more narrowly. In the mean time, what hath Achilles Gassarus for your purpose?

Achilles Gassarus, in his Epitome of all Histories and Chronicles, collected out of the best historiographers, hath these words: Johannes octauus, natione Anglicus, officio Papa, sexu tamen foemina, sedit annos 2. & men's. 6. turpissime. Which is: John the eight, by country of England, by calling a Pope, yet by sex a woman, sat shamefully as Pope two years and six months. Is not this plain?

Yes: but what find you in Rauisius Textor?

Scitum est ex Chronicis, & à maioribus scriptū (saith Rauisius Textor) Iohannem Anglicum ab Ephebis sexum virilem simulasse, & tandem fato nescio quo, aut fortuna certe volente, ad Pontificatum peruenisse, in quo annos circiter duos sederit, post Leonem 4. neque priùs innotuerit facti veritas, quàm à quodam ex domesticis impregnata, tandem emiserit partum. That is, It is a thing well known by the Chronicles, and written by our ancestors, that John English from her youth up carried her self as though she had been a man, and at length, by I know not what destiny, certainly by very great luck, she became Pope, & sat about two years, after Leo the fourth, and nobody knew her cosinage till she was with child by one of her meniall servants, and delivered thereof.

What find you in Fulgosus?

Marrie I find in Fulgosus, who was a noble and learned man, and sometimes Duke of Genua, that John the eight was found out to be a woman.

And what in Laziardus?

Johannnes Anglicus in cathedra Petri sedit annis duobus, mensibus septem, diebus quatuor, saith Laziardus. Hic, vt fertur, foemina fuit, &c. that is, John English sat in S. Peters chair two years, seven months, and four days. This, as the report goeth, was a woman, &c.

And who was the next you cited before this?

Hartmannus Schedel, a Doctor of physic, yet not ignorant of holy Scriptures, a very witty and well spoken man, as Trithemius witnesseth.

Oh: Schedel (I confess) reports this. But he reports it so coldly, so fearfully, so faintly, that a man may well see he doubted of it. For he confesseth, that he knew not whether it was so or no; and therefore fathers it upon one Martin, I know not whom.

Fie, that you should say so. Doth he not use the very words without change, which Platina useth in relating the same, whereof we shall have occasion to speak ere we part? and against which you can take no exceptions? And doth he not (to imprint the matter deeper into the readers memory) set her picture down with a child in her arms?

Yes indeed I cannot deny that. But to be plain with you, I care not what he saith of it. For as Florimondus noteth, he was one of the stinking brood of the Hussites, and lived in Nurinberge, what time Nurinberge was infected with Husses heresy. And therefore no marvel, if to curry favor with them, he touched by the way the supposed Popedom of Joan the woman.

See how you lavish. This Hartmannus Schedel borne in Nurinberge, was student in Padua, where he was created Doctor of Physic by the great Mathiolus. And he was so far from Husses mind, that in the same book he hath one whole chapter entitled, De heresy Hussitarum, & eius origin. That is, Of Husses heresy, and of the original thereof. Wherein he follows Aeneas Sylvius step by step, who speaks spitefully and bitterly against Hus and all his followers. It seems Florimondus of whom you learned this, is one of some stinking brood of liars.

Well, who is next?

Jacobus Bergomensis, a man well seen in Scripture, and an excellent humanitian, witty, eloquent, of good conversation, & a most famous Historiographer, as Trithemius reports of him. This Jacobus Bergomensis (I say) writes thus of this point: Johannes 7. Papa, natione Anglicus, post Leonem Pontificem Pontifex factus, sedit ann. 2. men's. 5. Hunc tradunt fuisse foeminam, quae adolescens admodum, ex Anglia, Athenas • um quodam doctissimo aniasio suo profecta, ibidem bonarum artium praeceptores audiendo, tantum profecit, vt Romam veniens paucos admodum etiam insacris Literis haberet pares. Ea quippe legendo, disputando, docendo, orando, tantam beneuolentiam & gratiam sibi comparauit, vt mortuo Leone praedicto Pontifice, in eiusdem locum, vt multi affirmant, omnium consensu Pontifex crearetur: verùm postea à familiari compressa, grauidatur, & Papa existens peperit. Nam ex Vaticano ad Later anensem Basilicam aliquando ad Litanias profecta, inter Colosseum & S. Clementem, praeter spem doloribus circumuenta, sine obstetrice aliqua publice peperit, & eo loci mortua ibidem, sine vllo honor cum foetu misera sepulta est. Adcuius detestandum spurcitiem, & nominis continuandum memoriam, in hodiernum us{que}, summi Pontifices rogationem cumpopulo & clero sacram agents, cum locum partus, medio eius in itinere positum, abominentur, eo omisso, declinant ad diuerticula vicos{que}: & sic loco detestabili postergato, reintrantes iter perficiunt quod coeperunt. Et ad euitandos similes errores statutum fuit, ne quis de caetero in B. Petri collocaretur seed, priusquam per perforatam sedem futuri Pontificis genitalia ab vltimo Diacono Cardinale attrectarentur. That is: John the seventh, by country English, was created Pope next after Leo, and sat two years and five months. They say this was a woman, and that she went very young out of England to Athens with a certain great clerk who was in love with her: and that there by hearing of good professors, she profited so much, that when she came to Rome she had few like her in Divinity. Whereupon, by her reading, disputing, teaching, and praying, she got her self so much favor, that upon Leo his death she was chosen Pope into his room (as many men say) by common consent. But see the luck of it; a while after she was got with child by one of her acquaintance, and delivered thereof in the time of her Papacie. For going upon a time from the Vatican to S. John Laterans in procession, between the Colosses and S. Clements, ere ever she was aware, she fell in travel, and was delivered in the high street without the help of any midwife. But she died presently, and was buried without any solemnity in the same place, with her little one by her. Now in hatred of her filthy dealing, and for continuing of the memory of so lewd a part, the Popes to this day when they go in procession, in respect of their dislike of that place of her travel, which was in the midst of her way, forsaking it, do turn into by-lanes and by-streets, till they have left that on their backs; and then returning into the same street again, they go forward with their procession. And for avoiding of like mischief in time to come, it was decreed: That none should be consecrated Pope, before the youngest Cardinal Deacon had tried by touching (whilst the party to be consecrated sat on a close stool) that he was a man. Thus Bergomensis.

Is not this he that wrote Supplementum Chronicorum, in the year 1503?

No. But this is he who wrote Supplementū Chronicorum in the year 1486. as Trithemius witnesseth, and the book itself convinceth. Your Florimondus was deceived, who seeing (perhaps) that it was printed in the year 1503, thought it was written the year 1503.

That error is not so great, though an error. But if it be he that I mean, I say with Florimondus, That his reporting of it is an argument of his ignorance, and so let him go.

So you may cast off all the rest if you be disposed, and make short work of our conference, for you may say of everyone: His reporting of it, is an argument of his ignorance. When Uolateran an historiographer of good note, shall be brought in saying: Johannes. 7. Anglicus, quem dissimulato viri habitu dicunt foeminam alioquin doctissimam fuisse, deprehensam{que} in via apud S. Clementem, quando peperit: that is, John English, the 7. of that name, who (as they say) carried himself like a man, when as indeed she was a notable well learned woman; and discovered so to be by her delivery of a child in the way near to Saint Clements: you may reply, Volaterans reporting of it, is an argument of his ignorance.

And what if I did so? yet you shall know anon, that I have a better answer to him, and to the rest. But mean while go on, and tell me what Trithemius saith to the matter.

Thrithemius Abbot of Saint Martins Monastery in Spanhiem, a reverend and an exceeding great learned man, writes thus: Sancto Leone Papa mortuo, eodem anno Johannes Anglicus successit 2. annis, & mensibus 5. quem ferunt quidam foeminam extitisse, & vni soli familiari cognitā, & ab eo compressam, peperisse in strata publica. Et ob id eum nonnulli inter Pontifices ponere noluerunt, quasi indignum facinus abhorrentes. That is, In the same year that Pope Leo died, John English succeeded for 2. years and 5. months. Now some say she was a woman, and that she was known so to be but to one only, by whom at length she was begot with child, and delivered thereof in the high way. And for this cause some would not reckon her among Popes in disliking her villanous fact. Thus Thrithemius. With whom in substance agreeth Sabellicus, a man of great reckoning in Venice, yea one of the famousest men in his time for all manner of good learning: of whose books Pius the third professed he made as much reckoning as Alexander did of Homers Iliads. Johannes Anglicus huius nominis 7 fit inde Pontifex, saith Sabellicus. Fuit is Moguntiaco oriundus.

Stay you there, and save a labor. For I confess with Florimondus, that Sabellicus by relying too much on Platina, hath put it in his history, doing therein very indiscreetly.

And what think you of Wernerus Roleuink, who is reckoned by Paulus Langius, among the famous Scholers of the order of Carthusians, and commended by Trithemius, for a man of good learning, and much devotion, whose words are these: Iste Johannes Anglicus cognomine, sed natione Maguntinus, circa haec tempora dicitur fuisse. Et erat foemina habitu vestita virili: sic in diuina Scriptura profecerat, vt par ei non inueniretur, & in Papam eligitur. Sed post impregnata, cūpulice in processione pergeret, peperit & moritur. Et hic sextus videtur fuisse Papa, qui nomen sanctitatis sine re habuit us{que} h • c. Et similiter sicut alij à Deo plagatus fuit: nec ponitur in Catalogo Pontificum: that is, This John, by his Sir-name English, by his country of Mainz, is reported to have sit as Pope about this time. And she was a woman. But went in man's apparel. She profited so well in divinity, that she had no fellow, and so was chosen to be Pope. But after a while being great with ch • ld, as she went in public Procession, she was delivered thereof, and died. And this seems to be the sixth Pope, which to this day was called holy, and proved naught. And therefore he was plagued by God, as the rest before him were plagued. Neither is she in the Register of Popes. How say you? did not Wernerus indiscreetly in relating it thus plainly?

Yes marry did he. But I wonder not at him, for relating of it: because in the same place (as Florimondus observes) he writes, that in as much as she was a German, no German could ever since be chosen Pope. Which is a lie with a latchet. For diverse Germans since that have been advanced unto the Popedom, as Damasus the second, and Victor the second, with others,

True: diverse Germans have been Popes since Joan the woman's Popedom; and if Wernerus writ the contrary, Wernerus lied shamefully. But he hath no rule of his tongue, who chargeth Wernerus with such a matter. For these are Wernerus words, which follow presently upon the former: Nugantur aliqui, hac de causa nullum Almannum in Papam eligi, quod falsum esse constat. Some prattle, that for this cause no Germain may be chosen Pope, which is apparently false. Whereby you may see that he reproveth that in others, for which he is injuriously reproved by your Florimondus. Your Florimondus may be a man in office, but if he go on as he begins, he will hardly prove himself honest.

Good words I pray you sir. Florimondus may be honest enough for anything you say against him. For he writes, that he hath two editions of this Wernerus, the one bearing date what year it was printed, the other without date, but very ancient. And these two (as he saith) do differ in reporting the story of Pope Joan, and in nothing else. Now it may be that though in yours it be as you say, yet in his it is otherwise.

I myself have seen two editions of Wernerus as well as Florimondus; yea I have seen four; one printed in the year 1479. another printed by Nicolas Gotz of Seltestad, I know not when, for it caries no date: a third without note either of the printer, or of the place where it was printed, or of the time when it was printed. But questionless very ancient: a fourth printed at Frankeford, 1584. In the 3 ancient ones there is not a word different in the narration of Pope Joan: nor in the 4, saving that the words Nugantur aliqui, &c. are in the fourth, and not in the other. But in none of them is there any such thing as Florimondus chargeth him with. But will you hear what the next man saith to the point in question? He is Matheus Palmerius, an Italian, and one of the choice men which were at the Council kept by Eugenius the 4. against the Council of Basil. Pontifex 106. Johannes Auglicus (saith Palmerius) sedit annis 2, mensibus 3. Fama est hunc Iohannem foeminam fuisse, & vni soli familiari cognitam: qui eam cōplexus est, & grauis facta, peperit Papa existens: quamobrē eum inter Pontifices non numerant quidā, ideo nomini numerum non facit. That is: John was a woman, yet not known so to be but to one of her familiars, who lay with her. She was delivered in the time of her Papacie: and because some reckon her not among the Popes, there are no moe John's for her, then if she had never been. Thus Palmerius.

Be it so. But what saith Platina, I pray you, for your purpose?

Platina, keeper of the Librarie in the Vatican, a man of great wit and learning, writes thus: Johannes Anglicus, ex Maguntiaco oriundus, malis artibus (vt aiunt) Pontificatum adeptus est: mentitus enim sexum cum foemina esset, adolescens admodum Athenas cum amatore docto viro proficiscitur, ibi{que} praeceptores bonarū artium audiendo tantum profecit, vt Romam veniens paucos admodum etiam in sacris Literis pares haberet, nedum superiores. Legendo autē, & disputando docte, & acute, tantum beneuolentie & authoritatis sibi comparauit, vt mortuo Leone, in eius locum (vt Martinus ait) omnium consensu Pontifex crearetur: verùm postea à seruo compressa, cum aliquandiu ventrem occulte tulisset, tandem dum ad Lateranensem Basilicam proficisceretur, inter theatrum (quod Colosseum vocant à Ner • nis Colosso) & S. Clementem, doloribus circumuenta peperit: eo{que} loci mortua Pontificatus sui anno 2. mense 1. diebus 4. sine vllo honor sepelitur. The meaning of which is: John English, borne at Mainz, got the Popedom (as men say) by evil means. For he dissembled his sex, being a woman indeed: and whē she was very young, she went to Athens with a scholar, who was in love with her. Where by hearing good Readers of all good learning, she profited so well, that when she came to Rome, she had few fellows, but never a one her better. Now by reading, and disputing, learnedly and wittily, she got so much credit, that upon Leo his death she was chosen in his room (as Martin writes) by common consent. But within a while after she proved with child by one of her servants; & though she carried all closely for a time, yet at length as she went to S. John Laterans, between the Theater (called the Colosses) and S. Clements, she fell in travel, and was delivered of a child, and died in the place. Which was in the second year, first month, and fourth day of her reign. And she was buried without any solemnity. How like you this?

So and so. But Bernartius is of opinion, that this was never written by Platina, but was foisted into him. For I have heard ( saith he) by Antonius Hetweeld, a man of good report, and an Alderman of Louaine, that one Engelbertus Boonius, a reverend man, and Dean of a great Church in Germany, had oftentimes told him, that he had seen many ancient manuscripts of Platina in the Vatican at Rome, and perused them diligently, and yet found never a word in any of them touching Pope Joan.

That Dean had the luck of it, if he light on such ancient manuscripts, as the Alderman of Louaine told Bernartius of. But how chanced it, that neither Onuphrius, nor Bellarmine, nor Baronius, who have had as free access into the Vatican library as any, could never light on these manuscripts? How chanceth it, that none since Bernartius thought good to except in that sort against Platina? Onuphrius, Bellarmine, and Baronius acknowledgement, that this story is in Platina, persuades me, that either Bernartius belied the Alderman, or the Alderman belied the Dean, or the Dean made a fool of the Alderman. For questionless if there had been any such manuscripts, some of them would have found them out, and made it known to the world ere this. For they are glad of narrower fig-tree leaves to cover their nakedness withal, then such manuscripts, if they were forth-coming. But perhaps you have some better answer behind then this.

I have. For what could you reply, if I answered that which Bellarmine hath upon another occasion, to wit, that Platina wrote not by public authority, nor took his history out of the public Registers of the Church?

I could quickly tell you, that both Bellarmine and you spake without book. For, besides that Platina himself professeth, that he writ by the commandment of Sixtus the fourth, Onuphrius confesseth, that he followed Damasus, Anastasius, and such Historiographers as had written before of the same matter.

But what say you to Florimondus, whose answer is, That Platina reported it rather to show his reading, then for that he thought it true?

What is Florimondus reason for that?

Marrie if he had thought it true (saith Florimondus ) he would have exaggerated it, and made the worst of it, that thereby he might have revenged himself of the Popes at whom he was angry. For Paul the second (as all men know) racked him, and deprived him of all his dignities, and justly cast him into prison, and kept him there as long as himself lived.

That Paul the second racked Platina, and deprived him of his dignities, and kept him long in prison, is very true. But that he cast him justly into prison, is false. For Trithemius witnesseth, that Paul the second dealt cruelly therein. Yet suppose all to be true: doth it follow in your Florimondus logic, Paul the second wronged Platina, Ergo Platina hated all Popes? And why not thē: Sixtus the fourth gratified Platina many ways: Sixtus the fourth set Platina at liberty, and restored him to his dignities: Ergo Platina loved all Popes? If one man's kindness could not work love towards all: it is not likely that one man's unkindness should breed an heart-burning against all: wherefore, notwithstanding this, we may well think that Platina wrote as he thought. And the rather for that in the words following, he professeth, that such a thing might well enough happen. What say you to Chalcocondilas the Athenian, whom I named next before Platina, as a witness for us in this controversy?

I say, Chalcocondilas hath not this tale.

What man? are not these his words? Constat mulierem quandam in pontificatum esse subuectam, quia sexus ignorabatur. Nam Italiae Occidentales pene omnes barbam radunt. Cum autem illa mulier grauida esset facta, & ad festum sieve sacrificium prodijsset, peperit infantem inter sacrificium in conspectu populi. Quapropter ne decipiantur iterum sedrem cognoscant, ne{que} ambigant, Pontificis creati virilia tangunt, & qui tangit, acclamat: Mas nobis dominus est. That is, It is well known that a certain woman was made Pope, by reason they knew not her sex. For all (almost) in the western parts of Italy, shave their beardes. Now when she was great with child, and came abroad to solemnize some day, or to say Service: as she was at service, she was delivered of a child in the sight of all the people. Wherefore lest hereafter they should be deceived in like sort, they make trial of his man-hood by touching, & he that toucheth proclaimeth: We have a man to our Pope.

I confess these words are in Chalcocondilas translated into Latin. But I say with Baronius, that though it be in the Latin, yet that was by Clauserus the translators bad dealing, who foisted it in. It was not written in the Greek by Chalcocondilas.

How proves Baronius that?

Nay he meddles not with proving of it, but refers you over to Florimondus for it. For Florimondus hath excellently well (as Baronius saith) discovered Clauserus cozenage therein.

How I pray you? for I know you have Florimon • at your fingers end.

Why, Florimondus compared Clauserus translation into Latin with a French man's translatiō of the same into French: and by that he saw this tale was not in Chalcocondilas, for • e found nothing of it in the French man's translation.

And is this Florimondus reason so much commended by Baronius, whereby he discovers Clauserus cosinage? Now the Vicar of S. fools be ghostly father to them both: for why might not the French man as well leave it out, as Clauserus put it in?

Oh, a faithful translator (as Florimondus notes) durst not have left it out, if he had found it in the Greek.

Nor put it in, if he had not found it in the Greek: durst he? And why may not we hold Clauserus as faithful an Interpreter, as the French man? yea why may not we hold him more faithful, seeing the French man was a Papist? for Papists hold it lawful, in translating to omit offensive matter: and so doth no Protestant. If Florimondus or Baronius could have named the place where a man might have seen a Greek copy, in which it is not, they had said somewhat to purpose; but going about to disprove it by a translation of one of their fellows, they deal ridiculously.

Well, if this answer please you not, know further, that it matters not what Chalcocondilas writes of this matter. For in rendering the reason why she could not so well be known to be a woman, he writes: That in the western parts of Italy all (almost) shave their beards: wherein he was grossy deceived, as Florimondus observes. And if in that, why not in the other?

He was not deceived in that of shaving. For by the Popes Canons, the Italian Priests, yea all the Priests of the Western Church, are to be shaven: Hic Papa (Anicetus) clericos comam & barbam radere in signum clericatus iussit, saith Pontacus. That is, Pope Anicetus commanded the Clergy to shave both their heads and their beards, in token that they were of the Clergy. And, Occidentalis Ecclesiae Clerū, ab ipsis Ecclesiae Christianae primordiis, barbam radendi morem tenuisse, asserit Gregorius 7. Pope Gregory the 7. avoucheth, that from the Apostles days, the Western Clergy did shave their beards. To whom Durand, who lived about the year 1280. subscribeth: for he acknowledgeth, that before, and in his time they were shaved, proving the lawfulness of it out of Ezekiel, and showing the mysteries that are imported by it. Yea Johannes Pierius Valerianus, (as you shall hear hereafter) witnesseth the same, imputing your error in electing Pope Joan, to the ordinary shaving of beards: because by that means a man could hardly know a man from a woman. Will not Florimondus lin lying? What think you of Theodoricus de Niem one of your Popes Secretaries? is it doubtful whether I wrong him in calling him to be a witness in this case?

I think you wrong him. For Florimondus reckons him among them who would readily have taken up such a tale against the Popes if he had heard of it, and yet did not.

Florimondus is like himself, to say no worse, for these are Theodoricus his own words: Johannes vocatus de Anglia, & fuit mulier de Moguntia nata, quae studuit Athenis sub virili habitu, & in tantum profecit in artibus ipsis, quod tandē veniens Romam, & per bienniū in eadē schola arts ipsas liberales legit: & adeo sufficiens fuit, quod etiam maiores & nobiliores vrbis, eius lections frequenter audierint. Ea postea in Papam concorditer eligitur à Romanis, & Papatum biennio & amplius tenuit: sed tunc diuitijs, ocio, & d • licijs vacans, non potuit continere sicut prius fecit, dum ardenter in paupertate posita literarum studio insistebat: vnde dum quadam die in Rogationibus cum clero Romano, sicut tunc moris erat, in solenni processione incederet, Papalibus ornata diuitijs & ornamentis, edidit filium suum primogenitum, ex quodam eius cubiculario conceptum, prope templum Pacis in vrbe, vt adhuc vetus statua marmorea illic posita figur atiue demonstrate. Vnde summi Pontifices, dum ad Lateranensem de Basilica Principis Apostolorum, & e contrà vadunt, illud rectum iter non faciunt, imo per alios vicos, per indirectum transeunt, illud aliquantulum prolongando. That, is John called English, was a woman borne at Mainz, and she studied at Athens going in man's apparel, where she profited so well in the arts, that coming to Rome she read there the liberal sciences, and was held so sufficient a reader, that many of the better sort became her ordinary hearers. Afterwards with one consent she was chosen Pope, and lived in it two years and upward. But betaking her self more then before to idleness and pleasure, she could not live continently as she did in her poor estate, when she plied her book diligently: whereupon one day as she went with the Clergy and people of Rome (according to the custom of that time) in solemn procession, being attired in Papal manner, she was delivered of her first begotten son, begotten by one of her chamber, near the temple of Peace, which stands in the city; as is evident by an old marble Image which stands there to this day, to denote so much in a figure. And hereuppon it is, that when the Popes go from the Vatican to Saint John Laterans, and back again, they go not the direct way thither, but by other streets further about, and so make their journey longer. Thus Theodoricus de Niem.

I do not remember any particular answer unto this man's testimony. Wherefore go on, and let me hear what the rest say. Yet if you will for brevity sake, you may pass over the testimonies of Petrarch, and Boccace, and Lucidus, and of our country man Higden, and some such others, because Florimondus acknowledgeth that they speak to it.

Content. What think you of John of Paris, who lived about the year 1280, and read publicly with great commondation in the University of Paris, both divinity and humanity. Beleeued not he this story?

I cannot tell. What say you?

I think he did. For showing how sometimes a man may lawfully dispute and take exception against the Pope, in respect of his person, he notes, That such a person may be chosen as is not capable: vt si esset foemina, vel haereticus, sicut fuerunt aliqui, qui ob hoc non enumerantur in Catalogo Paparū. As for example, saith he, if he prove a woman, or an heretic, as some have done, who in that respect are not reckoned in the catalogue of Popes.

It seems by his words (I cannot deny) that he alludes to such a matter. But did you not allege Gotfridus Viterbiensis for proof of the same? I pray you let me hear him speak. for D. Harding reckons him among them who say nothing of her.

True, D. Harding doth so. But so doth no man else of his side, to my remembrance. Which is a great probability that Harding belies him. But not to stand upon probabilities, the history it self puts the matter out of doubt: for between Leo the 4. and Benedict the 3. we read thus (not in the margent, nor in any other letter, but in the currant of the text, and same letter) Papissa Joanna non numeratur. That is, Joan the she Pope is not registered. Whereby it is manifest that he knew of her, though he said little of her.

When lived this Gotefridus? and what manner of man was he?

He lived, as Trithemius witnesseth, in the year 1185. and was a priest well seen in the holy Scripture, and not ignorant of human knowledge: so that you have little cause to except against him either as a late writer, or a rash writer. But shall we at length hear what evidence Martinus Polonus affords us in this case?

With all my heart: for there are diverse who hold opiniō that that which is in Polonus touching Pope Joan, is cogd into him by Heroldus, who first printed him, or some such like fellow.

Do they say so? And can they show me any book written or printed, wherein it is not in Polonus, thus? Post hunc Leonem Johannes Anglus, natione Maguntinus, sedit an. 2, men's. 5, diebus 4. Hic, vt asseritur, foemina fuit, & quum in puellari aetate à quodā suo amasio in habitu virili Athenas ducta fuit, in diuersis scientijs ita profecit, vt nullus sibi par inueniretur: adeo vt post Romae triuium legens, magnos magistros, & discipulos & auditors haberet. Et quum in vrbe, & vita & scientia magnae opinionis esset, in Papam concorditer eligitur. Sed in Papatu per familiarem suum impregnatur: verùm tempus partus ignorans, quum de Sancto Petro in Lateranum tenderet, angustiata inter Coliseum & S. Clementis ecclesiam peperit, & postea mortua ibidem (vt dicitur) sepulta fuit. Et propterea quod Dominus Papa semper eandem viam obliquat, creditor omnino à quibusdam, quod ad detestationem facti hoc faciat. Nec ideo ponitur in Catalogo sanctorum Pontificum, tam propter muliebris sexum, quàm propter deformitatem facti. Which in effect sounds thus in English: After this Leo, John English, by her countrev of Mainz, sat two years, five months, and four days. This Pope (as they say) was a woman, & being carried in her youth in man's apparel to Athens, by one who was in love with her, she profited so much in diverse kinds of learning, that she had no fellow: in so much that coming to Rome, and reading there Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric, she had of the greatest Rabbins there many auditors and scholars. And being much esteemed of in that City, both for her life and learning, with one voice she was chosen Pope. Now in the time of her Papacy, she was got with child by some of her familiars: and not knowing she was so near her reckoning, as she went from Saint Peters to Saint John Lateran, between the Colossae and Saint Clements Church, she was delivered of a child; but died thereon, and was there (as they say) buried. And because the Lord the Pope doth always shun that way, it is thought by some, that he doth it in dislike of the accident. And she is not numbered among the Popes: partly because of her sex, partly because of the filthiness of her fact. Can they, I say, show me any book written or printed, wherein it is not in Polonus thus? Doth not Onuphrius, and Bellarmine, and Bernartius, and Baronius, and N. D. with many others of your side, who show more wit then honesty in pleading this case, confess that Polonus writ this? & that this is to be found in Polonus?

Yes, the most do. But some, as I told you before, suspect the worst, and namely D. Bristow; for he reports that many years ago, a Protestant (who was counted a great historian) brought out the same Martinus in a fair writ̄ hand, to show him this story. And behold, she was not in the text, but in the margent, in another hand. Whereupon when he saw that: Now I perceive (quoth he) that this Author also faileth you.

What Protestant was that, who had Martinus in so fair a written hand? Can you tell me his name, or the place where he abode, that I may inquire further, for satisfying myself in the truth of this matter?

Nay, I know no more then I have told you. For the Doctor names no particular circumstance. But I make no question of the truth of it. For I presume that such a Doctor would not lie.

Oh no. A popish priest lie? that is not credible, no more then it is credible that a priest of the order of Aaron would deceive. But you know what a long story that Doctor tells, of one Margaret Iesop, who was cured of her lameness by the Sacrament of miracle that was kept at Saint Gudilaes Church at Brussels: and how he amplifies every point, and sets it out with all the circumstances, as though it were as true as the Gospel; whereas the Senate of Brussels, by way of proclamation within a few years after, did discover all to be but a pack of knavery. And therefore you must pardon me, if notwithstanding I give him not the lie, yet I believe him not in this, considering it is an old said saw: Qui versatur in generalibus, versatur dolose: He that speaks only in generality, means falsely.

Well; be it that Polonus writ this, yet know you that as Bellarmine and N. D. note, he was a very simple man: and that his manner of writing was vain and nothing like to be true in D. Hardings judgment. Yea know, that he was only famous for tales, for that is Bernartius censure of him.

See the rashness of our later generation of Papists. Polonus was an Archbishop, and the Popes Poenitentiary. He was learned in the holy Scriptures, and not ignorant of secular learning, he was one whom Platina relied on much, for matters of history, and thought worthy the commendation of great learning, and singular good life. He was the man, whom the Author of Fasciculus temporum, and Jacobus Bergomensis, two good historiographers, professed that they followed especially. And yet with our present Papists he is but a simple man, &c. Are you not ashamed of this exception?

No. For I will prove his simplicity by many arguments.

And how I pray you?

Why first by this, That he would needs persuade us that Pompilius, who was Numa his father, succeeded next to Romulus. For this is a mere tale, and yet he writes it is as a truth.

Away, Away. Post Romulum regnauit Numa Pompilius, saith Polonus. That is, Numa Pompilius reigned next after Romulus: but not Pompilius who was Numa his father.

Secondly he would persuade us that Numa of a Tribune of the people, was made a king, which is another tale.

He would not. For he writes plainly, that Tribunes were ordained 16. years after the reign of the Romaine kings, when the people complained of the hard measure that they received at the hands of the Consuls and of the Senate. He knew no such officers in the time of the kings.

Thirdly, he would persuade us, that the Church which is now called Sancta Maria Rotunda, and in old time Pantheon, built by one Agrippa, was before that the house of one Cybele, supposed to be the mother of the gods: which is a toy, and a conceit of an idle head.

This is false too. For he saith only, that Pantheon was built by Agrippa at Cybeles motion, who was the mother of the gods, which is confirmed for true by many others: he saith not, that it was first Cybeles, and afterwards turned to the honor of all the gods.

Fourthly, he would make us believe, that that famous Theater made by Titus, was the temple of the Sun; which is mere foolery.

No, No, Ante Coloseum fuit templum Solis, saith Polonus: before the Colossae there was a temple of the Sun. But that Titus Theater was that temple, Polonus saith not.

Yet he saith, That the temple of Peace, commonly called the everlasting Temple, fell the same night that Christ was borne: whereas it is plain by all ancient histories, that it was not built till Vespasians days, a good many of years after Christ was borne.

The ancient histories witness, that Uespasian built a temple of Peace: but that doth not argue, there was no Temple of Peace before. Some write, that Romulus built a temple of Peace. And Clemens Alexandrinus writes, that Numa built a Temple of Peace. But it concerns not Polonus credit, whether there was any or none: for he saith not, that the Temple of Peace fell the same night that Christ was borne. He only saith, that the golden Image which Romulus set up in his palace, auowing, that it should not fall down till a virgins was delivered of a child, fell down in the night wherein Christ was borne: though if he had said the other, the matter had not been great. For he was neither the first, nor the last; many of good note both before, and since, have written as much: namely Petrus Damianus, Petrus de Natalibus, Jacobus de Voragine, and the Author of that first sermon upon Christ's Nativity, which is extant among the Sermons ascribed to Bernard. If you have no better arguments to prove his simplicity, you may soon prove yourself a malicious slanderer.

My arguments are good enough against him, as you shall hear more fully anon. But for the present tell me, what Marianus Scotus hath that makes for you. For I cannot think it is true, that Marianus Scotus hath this story.

You ieast I am sure. For do we not read thus in him? Leo Papa obijt Kalend. Augusti. Huic successit Joanna mulier, An. 2. men's. 5. dieb. 4. That is, Leo the Pope died in the Kalends of August. After him succeeded Joan the woman, who sat 2. years, 5. months, and 4. days. And, which I would have you note by the way, this Marianus was borne in the year 1028. and lived in great credit in his life time, and when he died was held a Saint: and at this day is reputed by your Baronius, Nobilis Chronographus, a worthy Chronologer.

I do not deny but that you may read so in some printed copies. But I deny, there is any such thing to be read in the more ancient hand-written originals, found in Flanders and other places.

Do you not deny but that we may read so in some printed •• pies? verily you might have yielded unto me, that I may read so in all printed copies, for you are not able to produce any printed copy (except it be of yesterdaies printing) wherein it is not. But you deny it to be in the more ancient hand-written originals found in Flanders and other places. And upon what ground (I pray) deny you that? for Baronius your Cardinal Historiographer; confesseth, that that ancient hand-written original which the first printed copy followed, hath the story. And it is so ordinary with you Papists to bely hand written originals, that he, who knows you, cannot in wisdom believe any of you upon your bare words.

I have good ground of that which I deny, I would you should well know. But first I challenge you to make proof that we Papists, as you call us, belie any hand-written originals, for me thinks you therein charge us deeply.

The proof of that is plain. For first one of your Bishops, even B. Lindan, to make good his own conceit of the right reading of the text John. 21. 22. (about which you know there hath been hot contention) which he maintained to be this. If so I will he remain till I come, what is that to thee? alleged for proof thereof the testimony of an ancient hand-written original kept at Aix in Germany: whereas in truth, it is not so read in that copy, but according to the Greek: If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to thee? as Francisous Lucas a man of your own coat witnesseth. Again the same B. Lindan protested that he saw an ancient hand-written original of the Psalms in Hebrew, found in England: whereby it was apparent, that the Hebrew Bible is defective at this day in some points. Yet the same Lucas, who came to the sight of the same copy, assures us: That that Psalter makes rather to the contrary. In like manner Onuphrius your Frier above named, alleged certain hand-written originals of Maximus a Monk, by which it is manifest, as he saith, That Honorius the first condemned the Monothelites: yet Turrian the Jesuit, who had access to the self same manuscripts, confesseth (as Andradius relateth) that Maximus make no mention of Honoruas condemning them, And whereas your great Goliath of Gath, Bellarmine I mean, to prove that Honorius name was thrust by fraud into the sixth general Council among the Monothelites, a •• irmeth: that Anastasius (which was then in written hand only) did testify so much, now, that Anastasius is printed, we set Bellarmine's fraud. For Anastasius testifieth no such thing. Anastasius himself reckons Honorius for a Monothelite. In this controversy about dame Joan, diverse of your proctors plead as out of the hand-written originals of the same, Anastasius, that upon Leo the 4. his death the sea was void but 15. days, and then Benedict was chosen. Yet our printed Anastasius makes it evident, they belied the hand-written Anastasius: for in the printed, there is not a word of the number of days between Leo his death, and Benedict his election. Lastly, whereas your grādhistoriographer Baronius, was informed by letters, from such as yourself, that Zoticus was shot through with darts, and so martyred: and he who certified him thereof, assured him that he sent a true copy out of the hand-written original acts of Zoticus, whereupon Baronius put it in print: Baronius was glad to retract it since; because (though he light upon the same Acts) he could find no such thing in thē. How say you? do not these particulars prove, that many of you are excellent at facing matters out under pretence of handwritten originals: which when they come to viewing, make nothing for you?

If all be true you say, it will prove (I grant) some bad dealing in some few persons among us. But you shall never be able to prove as much by me: for I will prove whatsoever I say.

Go to then: Make you proof unto me that this story is not in the more ancient hand-written Originals of Marianus Scotus: and if you do so, I will yield.

Will you so? Then I argue thus: ^a if this story had been in the most ancient hand-written Originals of Marianus Scotus, they who writ since his time would have alleged him for proof of it. But no man till now of late alleged him for proof of it. Wherefore this was not in the most ancient hand-written Originals of Marianus Scotus.

I deny the consequence of your proposition, viz. They who writ since Marianus his time would have alleged him for proof of it, if so be it had been written in the most ancient hand-written Originals. For first, till of late, there was no controversy about it, which made men less careful to avouch their authors for it. Secondly, Marianus chronicle, till printing came to some perfection, was rare (it seems) and hard to come by. For Polonus reckoning up the books out of which he took his story, names not Marianus among them. No more doth Onuphrius where he reckons up the Authors whom Platina followed. Onuphrius (I say) doth not reckon Marianus among them. Jacobus Bergomensis, and Wernerus Roleuinck, in their prefaces to their histories, wherein they show whom they followed, pass by Marianus as a man unknown unto them. And so do others. But for making of this matter plain, tell me, have you not heard, that Anastasius the second, one of your Popes, would have restored Acatius the Bishop of Constantinople, who stood excommunicated by some of your Popes predecessors, but that God prevented your Pope, and stroke him with a fearful death?

Yes, I have heard so much. But I take it to be as vain a fable as this of Pope Joan.

Yet you cannot deny but that it is recorded for true, by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, by by Rhegino, by Marianus Scotus, by Sigebert, by Luitprandus, by Albo Floriacensis, by Gratian, by Polonus, by Platina, by Volateran, by Jacobus Bergomensis, by Wernerus Roleuinck, by Trithemius, by Charanza, by Johannes de Turrecremata, and by others.

No indeed I cannot deny that, for all these (I know) report it as true.

Yea, and that in their most ancient hand-written Originals: do they not, for ought you have seen or heard to the contrary?

Good. But what of all this?

You shall see anon. In the mean time tell me only whether they who writ since Rhegino, and Marianus his time, allege Rhegino, or Marianus for the author of it?

Bergomensis, Roleuinck, Trithemius, Turrecremate, and such like, allege Gratian for the author of it. But I do not remember that any historiographer alledgeth Rhegino, or Marianus Scotus, for it.

If this touching Anastasius the second, may be in the most ancient hand-written Originals of Rhegino, and Marianus Scotus, though they, who have written since their times, allege them not for authors of it: why may not the other touching Pope Joan, be in the most ancient hand-written Originals of Marianus Scotus, though they who writ since his time, allege not him for the author of it? Have you not another argument?

Yes: for Bellarmine writes: That he who set forth Krantius Metropolis at Colen in the year 1574. doth witness, In antiquissimis exemplaribus Mariani Scoti non haberi Ioannem foeminam. That in the ancient copies of Marianus Scotus there is no mention of Joan the woman.

And what was he that set forth Krantius, can you tell me that? doth Bellarmine, or N. D. (who twangs on the same string with Bellarmine ) name him?

No, but what is that to the purpose? He, whosoever he was, witnesseth so much. And is not that enough?

No believe me: No reason that a nameless fir should be credited against all printed copies, especially if it be true, which Bellarmine saith, in another case: Author sine nomine, est sine authoritate, A man without a name, is without credit; and, Canon à concilio cuius ne nomen quidem extet, facile contemni potest. A Canon out of a Council whose name is not known, may very well be skorned. But would you know why Bellarmine and N. D. did not name him? Questionlesse, not for that they knew not what his name was: but because he was but a base fellow, a Printer, a poor Batchler of the law. A man of small esteem in the world: for he is named in the first page of the book, Gerwinus Calenius Lippiensis, and his whole style is no greater, then Legum Licentiatus. And what was such a fellow, to carry away such a matter as this, upon his bare word? But which is more to be marked, this fellow barely saith (without any proof in the world) that the manuscripts of Marianus Scotus, which are extant, discover the falsehood of them who put this story into the printed Marianus implying, that all Manuscripts, not the ancient only, want it. Which neither Bellarmine, nor N. D. durst or dare avouch, the contrary being confessed directly by Baronius, and may out of themselves be gathered by consequence. Besides, he saith as much for clearing of Sigebert, as Marianus Scotus, for these are his very words: Quae hic Author de Iohanne foemina refert, in odium Romanorum pontificum conficta fuisse ab illis, quos ipse deceptus sequitur, vt alios omittamus quos Onuphrius in Platinam scribens recenset, testantur Marianus Scotus & Sigebertus, quorum quae supersunt M. S. exemplaria, fraudem illorum detegunt qui eorum impressis voluminibus id inseruer̄t. That this, which the author hereof reports touching Pope Joan, is but counterfeit stuff, devised to make the Pope odious: to say nothing of such proofs as Onuphrius gives in his Annotations upon Platina, Marianus Scotus and Sigebert do testify: whose Manuscripts remaining on record, discover their falsehood, who have chopped this tale into their printed volumes. And yet neither Bellarmine, nor N. D. durst allege him to prove that Sigebert is corrupted.

Peradventure they durst have alleged him so that purpose also, though they did not: for doubtless there is no such story in Sigebert.

Why? But all the printed copies do convince you of shameless lying, in so saying. For thus they read: Johannes Papa Anglicus, fama est hunc Iohannem foeminam fuisse & vni soli familiari cognitam qui eam complexus est, & grauis facta peperit Papa existens. Quare eam inter Pontifices non numerant quidam, ideo nomini numerum non facit. John the English Pope. The report is, that this John was a woman, and that one only, who used to lie with her, knew so much: and that at length, even in the time of her Papacy she was delivered of child. Whereupon it is that some reckon her not among the Popes, and that there is not one Pope John the more in number for her. What say you, is it not even thus?

I confess the printed copies make for you in this also. But in the ancient, true, and approved copies of Sigebert in writing, this which you talk of is not. Aliquis impudens nebulo interpolauit scripta eius. Some paltry fellow hath been tampering with his writings, as Bernartius notes. Marry whether it was Geoffrey the Monk, or one Robert, who continued the story of Sigebert for some years, I know not: but between them it is as Onuphrius supposeth. And I am sure Sigebert never writ it. Cui rei adserendae fidus, & adpositus mihi testis est Gilbertus Genebrardus, which is witnessed very fully by Genebrard.

The Canonists, when Popes allege Popes for proof, do note: that it is, familiaris probatio. Meaning such belike, as that in the proverb, Ask my fellow if I be a thief. And so me thinks is this of yours, which is fetched from your fellow Genebrard. But what saith Genebrard for your purpose?

Genebrard saith, there be many Manuscripts of Sigebert, wherein this is not.

Yea, but that is the question. And how doth Genebrard prove it? Names he any place where they are, or any person who hath seen them?

No not he, but N. D. doth, for in the Monastery of Gemble in Flaunders, there is extant (saith N. D. ) the original of Sigebert, which wants this story.

What? the original of Sigebert? Who told N. D. that the original of Sigebert was in that Monastery? or was he there and saw it with his own eyes?

N. D. saith naught of that. But you may have further proof thereof out of Bellarmine: for he writes that Molanus a Doctor of Louaine saw the copy.

But Bellarmine saith not, that Malanus judged it to be the original of Sigebert: which yet N. D. avoucheth as confidently, as if he had held the candle while Sigebert wrote it. Neither doth Bellarmine tell us, to whom Molanus told this: or in what book he writ this. So that yet there is no just proof brought, that so much as one copy wants it, much less that it is foisted into such copies as have it.

Is there not? hearken then to Florunondus, who writes, that one Protasius, the credit of the order of Franciscans, sware to him, that he saw such a book in that Monastery; and that reading it all over, he found no word touching such a Pope.

This would have moved me somewhat to believe, that the copy in that Monastery wants this, if Florimondus had sworn for the satisfying of his reader, touching the truth of his report: as he urged the Franciscan to swear to him for the justifying of that which he told. But Florimondus delivers it barely of his word. And I have found him oft false of his tongue. Wherefore I cannot trust him. Florimondus would make us believe, that Michael the Emperors letter sent to Pope Nicolas, wherein the Emperor objecteth whatsoever might found to the disgrace of the Roman sea, is extant to this day: yet Baronius testifieth that they are not extant. He writes, that the Pope burnt them. Yea Florimondus himself in another chapter (forgetting the proverb, Mendacem esse memorem oportet ) confesseth, that they are lost. Yet be it so, that the copy which is in that Monastery wants this. Unless Florimondus can prove that it is the original, or truly copied out of the original, he speaks not to the point, as I shall show by and by.

Yea but he proves that it is the very original it self. For there (as he saith) Sigebert lived, there he wrote this book with his own hand, there he left it at his death as a monument of his love. There it is shown by the Monks to such as come thither, for arare and ancient monument.

Sigebert lived not there, when he writ that book. He writ both that, and many others, in the Monastery of S. Vincentius, within the city of Metensis. Which I speak not of mine own head, as Florimondus doth, but out of Trithemius. For in Trithemius you may read so.

Yet you cannot disprove Florimondus in that which he saith of his dying there: and bequeathing of that book by his will, to that Monastery for a legacy.

No indeed. But neither can he prove his own saying. Now you know that Actori, non reo, incumbit probatio: The plaintiff, & not the defendant, must bring in his proof. That which is nakedly affirmed, is sufficiently answered whē it is barely denied. Si dicere, probare est: pari ration, inficiari, refutare est: as you may read in Bellarmine.

Why, but the Monks of that house do show it to all comers as Sigeberts own.

That I believe. For I have read of a Monk, who gave out, that he had brought from the East some of the sound of the bells which hung in Solomon's temple. And that he could show among other reliks, some of the hairs which fell from the Seraphical Angel, when he came to imprint the five wounds of Christ in S. Francis body. And I have read of others, who show the Pilgrims that go to Jerusalem a three cornerd stone, and bear them in hand that it is that very stone whereof David spake, saying, The stone which the builders refused, is the head of the corner.

Tush, those Monks do but cozen folks.

No more do the Monks of Gemble, in my opinion: though it may be, they are rather cozened, then cozeners. For many a Papist persuades himself he hath that, which indeed he hath not. As for example. Many Papists are persuaded they have that Syndon wherein Christ's body was lapped, when it was interred, wherein (as they say) is to be seen to this day the picture of Christ: whereas indeed ( by some of their own men's confessions) they have but one made after that fashion. Again, many are persuaded, they have one of those nails, wherewithal Christ was nailed on the cross: whereas they have but one fashioned after that nail; or at most, some nail wherewithal some Martyr of Christ was tormented. And in like manner are they themselves deceived in their conceit of other relics. But that which makes me most suspicious of your Monks of Gemble, is this. I have read, that among many other goodly relics which are shown at Rome by the Popes commandment, there is a Bible shown, which they say was written by S. Jerome himself, even with his own hands: and yet one of your own profession professeth freely, that he perusing it thoroughly, found it was written by the commandment of one king Robert, and by a bungling scrivener. Illum ego diligentius inspectum comperiscriptum esse iussu regis (vt opinor) Roberti, chirographo hominus imperiti, saith Valla. Now I suppose, if we had access to Gemble in Flanders, perhaps we might find as much for discovering of their falsehood, in that which they report of the original of Sigebert: as your fellow found for the discovering of the others falsehood, who gave out, that the Bible which they shown was of S. Jerome's writing.

Suppose it be not the original of Sigebert which is at Gemble: yet you will not deny (I hope) but that it is some ancient copy, which they esteem so much of.

Be it so. But will you thereupon conclude, that the Author never writ it? I presume you are not so ignorant, but you know, that words, sentences, and memorable accidents, have sometimes by negligence, sometimes by willfulness, been left out of copies: as for example, the words (no not the Son of man, Mark 13. 32. whereon your Jesuits as upon a chief foundation, build their doctrine of aequiuocation) were wanting in many Greek copies, as S. Ambrose testifieth: and yet both you and we do hold opinion, that they were set down by the Author in the first copy. In like sort, the story touching Christ's sweating agony, and the Angels comforting him, Luke 22. 43. 44. was not to be found in many copies, as Hilary and Jerome witness: which came to pass, not for that it was never written by S. Luke, but (as Bellarmine in part, and Sixtus Senensis more fully notes) for that some simple Catholics, fearing it made for the Arians, razed it out of their books. So the story of the adulterous woman, in John the 8. was wanting in many Manuscripts both Greek and Latin, and namely in a Manuscript of Eusebius: yet that doth nothing prejudice the truth of our printed copies at this day, in which it is: no not in the opinion of you that are Papists. For as Bellarmine proveth out of Augustine, this history was blotted out of many books, by the enemies of God's truth. In much like sort (it seemeth) as the words of Aelfricus, which make against transubstantiation, were cut out of a fragment of an Epistle of his, in the library of Worcester, as M. Fox proveth evidently. And as this story of Pope Joan is cut out of a very fair Manuscript of Ranulfus Cestrensis, which is to be seen at this day in the library of New College in Oxford.

Is this story torn (indeed) out of Ranulfus Cestrensis in New College in Oxford? Who think you was so mad?

Why, who but a Papist? For do not they give direction, that quae famae proximorum, & praesertim Ecclesiasticorum, & Principum detrahunt, corrigentur at que expurgentur? That such things should be altered or put out, which tend to the discredit of the Clergy? And doth not this touch at quick their Ecclesiastical state? Doth not Posseuine advise, that the note in John Neuisan the Lawyer, which mentioneth Pope Joan, should be razed out? Dele ( saith he) quia Johannes haec foemina chimera est, & impostura calumniatorum: Blot it out, or rend it out, quoth Posseuine: for it is but a fiction, and a forgery.

You are too suspicious of Papists. But if these answers, whereon I have hitherto insisted, please you not, let it be as you would have it, that all these Historians writ so. yet I deny, that any credit is herein to be given unto them, because they report it but by hearsay, with vt asseritur.

That is false. For Marianus Scotus reports it simply without vt asseritur, as before I shown. And Laonicus Chalcocondylas reports it as a certain truth, saying, Constat, &c. So doth Rauisius Textor, and others.

That which you say of Marianus Scotus, is true, if we were to be judged by the printed copy, which Heroldus set out. But I can assure you, that Heroldus unconscionably corrupted this place, and many others. For it is thus written in the written copy, after which the first edition was printed. John anne • s • ui vt asseritur, fuit mulier. John, who as the report goes, was a woman.

So your Cardinal Baronius would make us believe, (I grant) but he brings no other proof thereof then teste meipso. Which how ever it may go for proof among Princes, yet is no proof among scholars. And for my part without proof, I believe nothing, whosoever he be that speaks it, especially if he be a Papist. For as Sigismund the Emperor said of Iudian the Cardinal, Legate at the Council 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 unknown: yea, but he is a Papist. Yet be it so, as Baronius saith it is. Why may it not be true though it be delivered with vt asseritur?

Why? Because lies are commonly so soothed.

Indeed many lies pass in such general terms. As for example: Men say, saith your Legend, that S. Patrick drove with his staff all the venomous 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 Harpsfield Cope confesseth to be a lie: and so I think all the generation of you Papists think of the later. Else, why do none of your great Masters allege it to clear your Pope from being Antichrist? Men say, saith Nangiacus as Genebrard reporteth: that Kentish-men have tails like brute beasts, because their ancestors mocked Augustine the Monk when he came to preach unto thē. Now that this is a lie well worthy of a whetstone, yourself (I hope) will acknowledge. Yet truth now and then is so delivered. When Boniface the Martyr was demanded on a time, whether it was lawful at the administration of the Lord's Supper, to use a wooden chalice: it is said he answered thus, saith Duaren: Olim aurei sacerdotes ligneis vasis, nunc lignei aureis vtuntur. In old time golden Priests used wooden chalices, now wooden Priests use golden chalices. Mark, ( fertur ) it is said, saith Duaren, yet no question but he answered so. In like manner, it is written, that Pius the 2. was wont to say, Marriage was upon just reason forbidden Priests, but now upon better reason to be restored to Priests. Of which his saying there is made no question, as may appear by this, that a Jesuit replieth only to it, That it was recanted by him, and denieth not that it was spoken of him. That Alexander the 3. trampled the Emperor Frederick under his feet, and commnded one to say that which is in the Psalms, Thou shalt walk upon the Lion and Asp, the young Lion and the Dragon shalt thou tread under thy feet: is recorded by some with, vt fertur: and yet they have little to say for themselves, who call the truth thereof in question. That merry Cardinal, 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 upon the election of a new Pope, cried out: Domini, discooperiamus tectum camerae huius, quia spiritus sanctus nequit ad nos per tot tecta ingredi. My good masters, I pray you let us vntile the roof of this room: for I fear the holy Ghost cannot get to us thorough so many slates: is merely reported upon election of Gregory to have made these verses.

Yet who doubts but he made them? Nicolas Clemangis Archdeacon of Baion in France, doth write upon hearsay. That when Balthasar commonly known by the name of John the 23. held a Council at Rome, and caused, as the manner is, before the first Session, a Mass to be said for the assistance of the holy Ghost: presently upon the Councils setting of themselves down, and Balthasars advancing himself into his chair of estate: a dreadful Owl (which is ordinarily thought to presage some evil towards) comes out of her hole, crying after her evil favored fashion, and flying to the middle balk of the Church, staring just in Balthasars face, to the great astonishment of Balthasar himself, and all the whole Council, so that he was glad to break off for that time. Yea he writes, that at the next Session she appeared again, staring in the Popes face as before, and could not be feared away with flinging of sticks, or with whooping, till one feld her with a stick, and so killed her. Yet no man hath cause to doubt of the story, for he had it of a trusty man, and a faithful friend of his, who assured him, of his credit, that it was true. That S. Cyril entreated the Pope, he might say the Morauians their service in a known language: and that when there was some sticking at the motion, a voice was heard, as it were, from heaven, saying, Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum, & omnis lingua confiteatur ei: Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord, and let every tongue confess his holy name: upon hearing whereof, the Pope granted S. Cyril his suite: is but reported with, ferunt. And yet though Costerus in that respect make some question of the truth of it, Ledesma, and Bellarmine receive it for true. That the worst Christians in Italy are the Romans: that of the Romans, the Priests are the most wicked; and of the Priests, the leudest are made Cardinals; & of the Cardinals, the badest chosen to be Pope; it is written, but with asseritur. Yet to them that are skilled in histories, and have observed the course of the world at Rome, there are not many things more certain. In Bavaria palàm ferunt, Iesuitas dolium in Collegium subuexisse, e cuius fundo effracto, meretrix in publicas plateas prolapsa sit, faith Hassen Muller. They say openly in Bavaria, that the Jesuits caused a tub to be carried unto their College, which breaking by the way, a wench dropt out of the one end of it, in the midst of the street. And why may not this be true, though it go but by report? The Papists believe as true, far more incredible reports then this, which concern Protestants. But to conclude this point. Doth not Harpsfield Cope avouch, that if men reject stories upon this quirke, that they are related with ferunt & dicitur, they will soon mar all? You had best devise a better answer then this, for fear that you be one of them who mar all.

Take you no care for that. Yet in way of further answer to Polonus, who is taken as N. D. writes) to have been the first relator of this fable. I say, there are so many incongruities, simplicities, absurdities, varieties, and contrarieties in his very narration of it, as it discovereth the whole matter to be a mere fable, and fiction indeed, and him a very simple man. For he begins his narration thus: Post Leonem sedit Johannes Anglus, natione Margantinus, After Leo the 3. John English, by nation a Margantine. But where this country of Margantia is, no man can tell.

N. D. whose words you use, doth Martinus Polonus open wrong, in reporting this of him. For first, he saith not that she sat after Leo the 3. but Leo the 5. Secondly, he calls her not Margantine, but Maguntine, which is witnessed by Onuphrius himself, who cites his words to his best advantage, that he might have the rather whereat to cavil. If any blind book have Margantine, it is but the Scriveners fault, such as is committed once and again in that book of N. D. whence this sweet cavil is taken. Where for Magdeburgians, we read Magdebugians. For in Polonus there is an, r, too much, and in N. D. there is an, r, too few. Now where Maguntia is every can man tell, to wit, in Germany.

Yea 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 reign that is assigned to Benedict, to wit, 2. years and 5. months. And yet presently after he saith, that Benedictus was a Roman, son to Prateolus, &c.

The substance of this your answer is false, and feigned of N. D. his own 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 reign that is assigned to Benedict. For he ascribes to Benedict 2. years and 5. months: whereas he ascribes to Pope Joan 2. years 5. months and 4. days, or (as some of you say) but 2. years, 1. month and 4. days. N. D. might with as great reason charge Anastasius to confound Leo the 2. and Benedict the 2. his next successor: because he ascribeth to Leo the 2. the same time of his reign (within 5. days) which he ascribes to Benedict the 2. Questionles, Polonus ascribes to Cl • men's, 9 years, 2. months, and 10. days: and so he doth to his next successor Anacletus, without difference: yet he confounds them not. Polonus ascribes to Celestinus primus, 8 years, and 9 days: and so he doth to Sixtus the 3. his next successor, and yet confounds them not.

Why, but what a foolish speech is it of Polonus, when he saith, John 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?

You run counter: she was no English woman, neither doth Polonus say she was: she was Joan English (as N. D. truly translated, Johannes Anglus, in Polonus ) but not Joan, or John of England. English was her sir-name, as Fasciculus Temporum observed; but England was not her country, her country was Maguntia, that is, Mainz. There are many who carry the name of Scot, French, Gascoigne, Westfaling, Holland, Welch, which were not born in those countries, but in several shires in England. Guitmundus, who wrote against Berengarius, was Norman by name, but not by his country, saith Posseuine.

Such writers as lived the very time wherein this matter is pretended to have fallen out, (that is to say) with Leo the 4. and with Benedict the 3. from the year 847, to 858. write nothing hereof at all. Ergo, there was no such matter.

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

The first and chiefest is Rabanus Maurus, Abbor of the Monastery of Fulda, wherein this Pope Joan of yours (they say) lost her maiden-head. Rabanus Maurus writes nothing of her.

Nor of any other particular Pope: doth he? Rabanus wrote commentaries upon the whole Scripture, and some other Treatises: but he wrote no history. Though if he had, yet could he not have written of this Pope Joan, for her knavery was not discovered till after the year 855. in which Rabanus died. Rabanus lived not to hear of her delivery of a child, as she went in progress.

Rabanus died in the year 856. and not in the year 855. as Baronius notes. Trithemius who noted out the year 855 for the year of his death, was deceived, and so are you.

Whether Trithemius was deceived in assigning the year 855. for the year of Rabanus death, I mean not to stand arguing with you, because it is all one to my purpose though he died in the year 856. For Pope Joan was not discovered till after the year 856. And therefore since he died in that year, by Baronius and your own confession, he could not write of her.

Strabus, whose fellow Monk bereaved her of her maiden-head, as the tale goes: Strabus (I say) writes nothing of her.

Strabus writes nothing of his fellow Monks, who by the instigation of the devil, wearied Rabanus of his Abbotship, through their continual grumbling against him, for giving himself more to the study of Divinity, then to pleading about their worldly businesses. Yet we read thereof in Trithemius and in others. Wherefore it doth not follow, Strabus wrote not of Pope Joan: Ergo there was no Pope Joan. Especially if it be considered, that Strabus wrote no history, but glosses upon the Bible, and lived not til Pope Joan’s days, but died about the year 840. For how could he write of that which fell out after his death? Who is your next man?

Haimo, who writ a book of virtue and vice, writes nothing of her.

No marvel: for he died in the year 834, at least twenty years before she was Pope. If Haimo had written of her, his writing had been as strange, as her delivery of a child.

How prove you that Haimo died in the year 834? For by Baronius, it should seem, he died in the year 853.

Though Haimo had died in the year 853, it helps not you in this case. For till after that time, this Joan was not made Pope. But that Haimo died in the year 834, it is witnessed by Trithemius, and acknowledged by Sixtus Senensis, and by Posseuine. Wherefore go on.

Anastasius Bibliothecarius, a man of great reputation, that lived in both these Popes times, and was Secretary to them both, and was present at both their elections, and wrote the particulars there • f, writes nothing of her, but showeth among other points, that Leo the 4. died the 16. day before the Kalends of August, and that all the Clergy of Rome gathered together, and with one consent did choose Benedict the third, &c.

Where read you that Anastasius was Secretary to both these Popes? or that he was present at their elections? Platina writing of an accident which fell out in the year 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 Secretary to Leo the 4. and Benedict the 3, or that he was present at their elections. Bellarmine himself durst say no more, but that he was present at the election of many Popes, who either lived before or after this woman Pope. He durst not say, that he was at the election of these, as you say. Again, who told you that Leo died the 16. day before the Kalends of August? Anastasius 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 win credit to this your Author, you commend him as a man of great reputation, it is worth the noting, (which is noted by one of your own friends) that in the age wherein he lived, doctissimi censebantur, qui velsolam Grammaticam callerent: they were counted great Clerks, who were skilled so much as in the Grammar. That in this Chronicle of Anastasius, the phrase is harsh, rude, and barbarous. That many things are avowed therein, which are far from true. That therein there are many errors in the account of time, and some things wherein he crosseth himself. Which censure, for the main point, is approved by many of your own mothers children. For many Papists, in many particulars condemn it. As for example, this man of great reputation reckens Anicetus before Pius, and Anterus before Pontianus. Whereas your Chroniclers reckon Pius before Anicetus, and Pontianus before Anterus. This man of great reputation records, that Marcellinus (one of your Popes) was brought to offer incense unto Idols, and that he did so: whereas your Baronius inclines rather unto the contrary. This man of great reputation records, that the priests of Rome, by the advice of Liberius, chose Felix a priest to be a Bishop instead of Liberius: whereas your Chroniclers of greatest esteem maintain, that Felix was chosen priest by heretics only, and not by consent of Liberius. This man of great reputation records, that Liberius subscribed to the Arian heresy: which neither Pighius nor Onuphrius can abide to hear of. This man of great reputation records, that Anastasius the second Pope of that name, communicated with Photinus the heretic, who was all one with Acacius the Eutychian. And that he purposed with himself to restore Acacius, who was deposed by his predecessors: but could not effect it, because God struck him with sudden death. All which is false and fabulous in Bellarmine's opinion. This man of great reputation records, that after Marcellinus, the Bishopric of Rome lay lea, seven years, six months, and five and twenty days: whereas by Baronius it lay lea but 25 days in all. This man of great reputation records, that the Cross of Christ was found in Eusebius the Popes days, about the year 310: whereas by Baronius it was not found till the year 326. This man of great reputation reckens Honorius the first among the heretics called Monothelites: whereas the most of your side, and by name Bellarmine, would gladly clear Honorius from this imputation. This man tells us, that Alexander the first sa • e but eight years, and a few odd months: whereas Baronius tells us, that he sat ten years and odd months. This man giveth to Pius, 19 years, four months, and three days: whereas Baronius gives him but ten years. This man makes Soter sit nine years, and upward: whereas by Baronius he sat not full four years. This man saith, that Anterus sat 12 years, 1 month, and 12 days: whereas Baronus saith, he sat not a whole month. This man alloweth Denis but two years and a little more, whereas Baronius allows him 11 years and more. This man writes, that Stephen the fifth sat 7 years, and 7 months: whereas by Baronius reckoning he sat but seuē months, and two or three odd days. And so in many other things, this man of great reputation alloweth of that, whereof you allow not, & disalloweth that which you allow. And therefore what reason have you to press us with his authority in this controversy?

Great reason. For though he missed sometimes the truth, yet he aimed always at it: and though he was unkindly dealt withal by some of the Popes, yet he was not carried away with malice, and moved thereby, as many are, to write an untruth,

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

I had it of Florimondus. And I think he was induced to say so, because we read in Leo the 4. his time, our Anastasius was degraded by Pope Leo, and a Council of 67. Bishops.

That Anastasius, who was degraded by Leo the 4. and the Council, was he (as Platina showeth) who stood up Antipope against Benedict the 3. It was not this Anastasius, Which you may learn of him, who made the Index Alphabetical, for the more ready finding out of the most memorable points in Anastasius Chronicle: for he distinguisheth Anastasius Bibliothecarius, from Anastasius degraded by Leo, and set up in opposition against Benedict the 3. But let Anastasius be of as great reputation as you are disposed to have him of. How soon after Leo his death, doth Anastasius report, that the clergy chose Benedict the 3? Can you tell me that?

Yea. The Sea was void after Leo the 4. just 15. days, and no more. And then, not Joan, but Benedict the 3. was chosen.

Who told you so?

Marry, Onuphrius, Bellarmine, Bernartius, Florimondus, and Papyrius Massonus. For they say that these are Anastasius his own 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 Bishopric was void 15. days. Now presently upon his death, the whole Roman Clergy with all the nobles, and commons, and officers of the city met: and as one man agreed that Benedict should be their Pope.

They all lie falsely. For the words ( Et cessauit Episcopatus dies 15.) are not to be found (as before I told you) in Anastasius. So that whatsoever they build upon this circumstance (as the most of their building is) is built upon a false foundation, and therefore cannot stand. Yet besides I would have you know that Anastasius purposely passed over in silence diverse things, which touched the Popes. For, Multa de Sergio desiderari videntur apud Anastasium, saith Baronius. Anastasius wants many things touching Sergius. Again, Johannes 8. res gestae desiderantur apud Anastasium, fortassis praetermissae ob odiosam Photij restitutionem, saith the same Baronius. The acts of John the 8. are wanting in Anastasius, perhaps because he was loath to record that odious restoring of Photios.

Anastasius forbears to speak of Luitprandus sacking S. Peters Church, which is without the walls of Rome. And so doth Paulus Diaconus too. Not for that he was ignorant of that fact, since he lived in the same time, but for that he was loath by telling truth to discredit Luitprandus. Wherefore let us leave Anastasius, and come unto the next, who living in those days, passeth over Pope Joan in silence.

Ado Bishop of Vienna, who lived at the same time, hath not a word of this your Pope Ione.

Ado lived not at the same time, nor near the same time, if either Gesner, or Posseuinus, or Laurentius de la Barre, or Angelus Rocca may be credited. For he (as they say) wrote a brief Chronicle from the beginning of the world to his own time, to wit, to the year 1353. Wherefore it is not much material whether he miss her, or mention her. Say on.

Theophanus Freculphus wrote in those days an history from the beginning of the world to his own time: and yet he writes nothing of her.

If Freculphus had written an history of that length, yet there was little reason why he should have mentioned her. For we read not that he lived above the year 840. But indeed his history goes not so far. He writ only to the year of Christ 550, as Bodin observeth: or to the year 560, as Pontacus noteth: or at furthest to the year 600. For having spoken a few words of Gregory the great & Boniface who succeeded him, he ends presently his story. Who is your next man?

Aimonius, A Monk of S. Germans, and a famous French writer, speaks nothing of her.

Aimonius, or Ammonius, or Annonius, (for he is diversely named) your famous French writer, drew out his story, by your own men's confessiō, but to the year 828, or at furthest to 844, which fell nine or ten years short (at least) of Pope Joan’s time. And therefore me thinks that you should not look that he should write of her.

Audomarus the Parisian omits her also in his history.

Where might a man see Audomarus I pray you? Cano tells of a Bishop in his country which was wont to cite Authors that never 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 any such in their disputes about this matter. When you can tell me certain news of such a writer, you shall have a more certain answer. In the mean time proceed.

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 speak of this matter: yet Ademarus is mentioned by Genebrard and Onuphrius, where they treat of this matter, as B. C. observed well, in his Dolefull knell of Thomas Bel: where he taxeth Sutcliffe for captious quarreling with father Parsons (as he calls him) for citing Ademarus, calling him a counterfeit.

B. C. is a fit patron for father Parsons: but an unfit match to deal with Dean Sutcliffe. Dean Sutcliffe (no doubt) scorns him. And good cause why. For who but a fool would appeal to one of his own fellows for trial of his truth? Are not Genebrard and Onuphrius as like to cite a counterfeit Author as Parsons!

Lupus Seruatus saith nothing of her.

Why? what occasion had he to speak of her, since he writ no books of history? Besides, Lupus Seruatus migrauit ad Dominum anno 851, saith Trithemius: that is Lupus Seruatus died in the year 851. So that, though as a Prophet he might have foretold of her delivery, yet as an Historian, he could not have reported her delivery.

Yea but Lupus Abbot of Ferrara in an Epistle of his to Benedict the third, calls Leo Benedicts predecessor: and thereby showeth, as Baronius gathereth, that there was no such Pope as Pope Joan, between Benedict and Leo.

What? doth Baronius gather such a conclusion of such premisses? Verily he gathereth where no man streweth. For I pray you, doth this follow. John the 9. speaking of Stephen the 6. calls him his predecessor. Ergo, there was no Pope between John the 9. and Stephen the 6? If not, as indeed it doth not, for there were two Popes who came between them, the one called Romanus, the other Theodorus ) then neither will it follow, that because Leo is called Benedicts predecessor, therefore there was no such Pope, as Pope Joan, between Benedict and Leo.

Yea, but this Lupus in diverse of his Epistles, doth complain of the miserable estate of the Church in his time. And therefore if any such horrible matter, as this of Pope Joan, had fallen out, doublesse he would have spoken of it, and mourned pitifully for it.

Doubtless, Baronius, if you give any credit to him, will make a fool of you. For doth not he mention diverse of his Complaining Epistles, sent to great personages? wherein yet he complains of nothing, but that Courtriers robbed his Corban; I mean his Monastery. That he wanted an ambling Nagge to ride to Rome on. That he wanted Tully de Oratore, Quintilian, and Donate upon Terence. And that there was such licentiousness in France (among the Laity) that the people neither feared God nor the devil. Of faults among the Clergy, Lupus complains not at all.

Luitprandus, who writ an history, speaks nothing of her.

What history of Luitprandus do you mean? That which is entitled De vitis Pontificum, that is, of the Popes lives? which was printed the other year at Mainz with Anastasius: or his history of such accidents as fell out through Europe?

I mean the latter. For I see the former, though it carry the name of Luitprandus, cast off by the Printer, as none of his.

Now then you are a wise man, to tell me that Luitprandus mentions not Pope Joan. For Luitprandus Ticiuensis Diaconns, historiam per Europam gestarum libris 6, ab An. 858. ad • 0. vsque Othonis magni fere continuat, saith Genebrard. That is, Luitprandus Deacon of such a Church in Italy, continues his history of accidents which fell out in Europe, from the year 858. to the 30. year (almost) of Otho the great. By which you may see that he began his history after Pope Joan’s time. And therefore had no cause to speak of her.

Lambertus Schafnaburgensis hath not a word of her.

To this I answer, first that he lived not in the same time with her: he lived anno 1077. Secondly I say, that this Lambertus did but touch by the way. all ages from the beginning of the world to the year of Christ 1040. as Pontacus truly observed: though he discoursed at large of the 37 years that followed. Thirdly, this Lambertus doth not so much as name Stephen the 4, or Paschalis, or Eugenius, or Ualentinus, or Gregory the 4, or Sergius the 2, or Leo the 4, or Benedict the third, or Nicolas, or Adrian the second: and therefore what marvel if he speak not of this Pope Joan?

Otho Frisingensis, who lived about the year 1150. makes no mention of this story.

But he doth. For John the seueuth ( saith he) was a woman.

They who lived within a few years 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.

Who are they you mean?

The first is Johannes Diaconus, who in the year 870. writ of the Popes lives.

That Johannes Diaconus w. it S. Gregory the great his life, I grant; and as some say Clements: but that he writ of anymore Popes, I utterly deny. You have a pretty gift in alleging writings that never were. But say on.

Milo Monachus who lived Anno 871. saith nothing of her.

Milo Monachus I believe saith nothing of her, nor any other Pope: for he writ no history. They who commend him, do commend him for a Rhetorician, and for a Poet, and for a Musician, but not for an Historiographer.

Passeratius Rabertus who lived in the year 881. saith nothing of her.

This Passeratius is (surely) some author of your own devising. For no man can tell any news of him. But (perhaps) you would say Paschatius Ratbertus, for such a one lived about the time you speak of. Yet this writ no history. This writ neither at length, nor in brief, of any of the Popes lives.

Yea but Rhegino, who lived in the year 910. and comprehendeth briefly all the choice matters which fell out in the time of this supposed Pope Joan, writes nothing of her.

Rhegino writes nothing of John 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 marvel though he write nothing of this Joan the woman Pope.

Why, but the greatest enemies that ever the Popes had, who lived in, and after those times, and were ready to cast in the Popes teeth whatsoever they knew, or knew not, to the end they might disgrace them, yet never objected this of Pope Joan. Which confirms me much in my opinion, that this is but a tale, devised long after by some crafty headed heretics.

Who are these I pray you?

John Bishop of Rauenna is one of them, Methodius Illyricus another, and Michael Palaeologus the Emperor of Constantinople a third.

How know you, that these never objected Pope Joan’s lewdness to the disgrace of the Roman Papacie? Have you read all that they writ, and all that they spake?

Nay: their writings are not extant, I confess. But a man may know how they slandered the Popes by the answers of many godly men, made in defense of the Popes. For as we Catholics at this day are forced to make mention of your objections, when we undertake to answer your books: so in those days the Catholics were driven to make mention of the slanders which they refuted. Now in their refutation of slanders, there is no such thing as this of Pope Joan.

Why, pe •• duenture they knew, that in this they were slandered with a matter of truth; and therefore they held it best to pass it over in silence. Questionlesse your fellows at this day do so often. When Beza objected this very matter in the assembly of Poysy, before the Cardinal of Lorraine, and the Sorbonists of Paris: who answered him? Do not your own men confess, that no man said a word to him? When the Hussites (as you call them) objected the same at the Council of Constance; was not silence their answer? We read in a book lately set forth, intitled Synodus Parisiensis, that 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 themselves and holy men alive refused to be worshipped? Now the two great Cardinals, Bellarmine and Baronius, snarl at this book, seeking by all means to disgrace it. Bellarmine expressly professeth the confuting of it: and Baronius sets the most of it down in his Annals even word for word, making glosses here and there upon it, in way of answer to it. But both of them pass slily by the words of Ambrose. If we had not had the book itself, we should never have known by their answers, of such an argument of S. Ambrose his making, against Images. In like manner these two Champions undertake to answer such arguments as are made to iustistifie the report of Gregory, delivering Trajan out of hell. Yet there is one argument made by their opposites, which they never touch; and that is this: that in S. Gregory's Church at Rome, the sum of that story is engraven in an ancient stone. Upon which argument the Jesuit Salmeron stands much. If their opposites writings were not extant, by their answers, we had never heard of such an objection. Wherefore if you would persuade me that these eager enemies objected not this against the Pope, you must bring better proof thereof then this, that you find no foot-stepping of it in the answers made unto them. But go on with your argument: what other enemies silence persuades you that this story is a fable?

Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, Theodoricus de Niem, Waltramus Bishop of Norinberge, Benno the Cardinal, bitter enemies unto the Pope, pass this ever in silence. And that is a great argument to me, there was no such thing.

That Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims should have lived at enmity with your Popes, it is not for your Popes credit it should be known. For he was singularly well learned, very wise, and very honest, as Trithemius witnesseth: in so much that your great Cardinal Baronius, when he hath occasion to cite him, entitles him Saint Hincmarus: wherein his Epitomizer follows him.

Well: what say you to Theodoricus de Niem?

I say (which before I proved) that he mentions the story.

And what say you to Waltram Bishop of Norinberge?

I say, there are few of his works extant: and in those which are extant, he shows no gall against the Pope: only he proves that the Emperor hath right to the inuestiture of Bishops.

Why, but do you not think that Benno the Cardinal, who spake so much evil of Gregory the seventh, and other Popes, would have noted this, if he had known of it?

No. Benno (no doubt) knew much foul matter by many other Popes, which he did not touch. There are many shameful things reported in other stories by many of your Popes, which Benno hath not in his story. But do you think in good earnest, that Benno the Cardinal was the author of that book which goes under his name, and is intitled Vita & gesta Hildebrandi?

Nay indeed I do not. I rather think it was made by some Lutheran, and falsely fathered on Benno. And of that mind is Bellarmine in part, and Florimondus wholly.

So was not Orthuinus Gratius, who set it out at Colen, in the year 1535. For he, though as hot a Papist as any of the crew, held it for Benno his own, and professed that he rather believed him then Platina, and Stella, and Sabellicus. But see you not by the way your own folly, in that you conclude there was no Pope Joan, because the writer of that story makes no mention of any such Joan. 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 been disposed to have disgorged himself of all that lay on his stomach, he would have cast up that with the rest. But go forward.

Rupertus the English Bishop, who because he was excommunicated by the Pope, devised and raked together all manner of lies against the Pope, did not for all that object this.

Rupertus the English Bishop, whom you mean was the man commonly called Grosthead. A great Philosopher, excellently well seen both in Greek and Latin, a Reader of Divinity in the Schools, a famous Preacher in the pulpit, a man of holy life and conversation: even so holy, that in the opinion of the whole clergy 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 fool, surd, and absurd companion, and to threaten he would make him a by-word and an astonishmēt unto the world. And to say truth, this man had many bickerings with the Pope, insomuch that in one letter he signified unto him, that by his writs with ( non obstante ) he brought upon the world a Noah's flood of mischieues, whereby the purity of the Church was defiled, and the quietness of the common wealth hindered. That by his Reseruations, Commendaes, Prouisions of Benefices for Persons, who sought to fleece, and not to feed the flock of God, he committed such a sin, so contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles, and the Evangelists: so hateful, so detestable, so abominable to Christ Jesus, as never sin was, but the sin of Luciser: nor never shall be, but the sin of Antichrist, whom the Lord shall destroy with the breath of his mouth at his coming. He signified unto him, that no mā could, with a good conscience, obey any such mandats as he sent, though they came from the highest order of Angels. For they tended not to edification but the utter undoing of the Church. Are these the lies by reporting whereof he sought to revenge himself on your Pope? Alas, the College of Cardinals confessed before the Pope, that they could not blame him for writing thus, for he said naught but truth.

Another Englishman, Matthew Paris by name, made a hodge-podge of all the villainies he could remember, and yet he hath not this.

Matthew Paris, indeed tells many foul tales of the Popes and the Papists. As for example: He reports how Satanas, & omne contubernium inferorum. That is, The devil of hell, and all his hellish crew, writ letters gratulatory to the whole rablement of the Popish Clergy, acknowledging their kindness, in that following their pleasures, and giving over preaching, they suffered more souls to go to hell then ever went before.

He reports how Gregory the 7. set the whole Church on a hurry, by deposing married Priests frō their priesthood, and forbidding the Laity to hear their service; because he had no president for such his proceeding, and because (as some thought) it was an unadvised part, contrary to the opinion of the ancient Fathers, who wrote that the Sacraments of the Church, by the invisible working of the spirit, have like effect, whether they be administered by good or bad men, &c.

He reports how a Cardinal Legate, at a Council held in London, inueighing against Priests Lemans, was taken the same night after in bed with a whore.

He reports how Germanus Archbishop of Constantinople, signified unto the Cardinals of Rome: that the Grecians stumbled much at this, that the Cardinals desired to be accounted his disciples, who said: Silver and gold I have none: and yet were wholly set upon gathering of silver and gold.

He reports how the Pope enjoined by one mandate to the Bishops of Canterbury, Lincoln, and Salisbury, that they should provide for 300 Romans in benefices next vacant. And they should give no benefice till they had provided for so many competently.

He reports how Hugh the Cardinal bragd, when Innocentius departed from Lions, that whereas there were four stews at his coming thither, he had left them but one. Marry that reached from the one end of the town to the other.

He reports how the Franciscans and Minorites, by commandment of the Pope, appointed all sorts of people, young and old, men and women base and noble, weak and strong, sound and sick, to go for recovery of the holy land. And yet the next dare, yea sometimes the same hour, for money, they dismissed them again.

He reports how Pope Innocentius the fourth, stirred up the Christian people of Brabant and Flaunders to war against Conradus the Emperor, promising them for their labor for giuenesse of all their sins. Yea he promised such warriors not only forgiveness of sins for their own use, but forgiveness of sins for their parents also. The fathers and mothers of such as warred against Conradus, had all their sins forgiven them, as well as the warriors themselves.

These and many such like tales he tells by the Pope, which the truth it self enforced him to do. But he meddles not with anything which was done by any Pope within 1000. years after Christ. And therefore no marvel though he spake nothing of Pope Joan.

John of Calabria, a man famously known for a railer against the Popes, spake nothing of this.

John of Calabria told our king Richard the first, that Antichrist was as then borne in Rome, and that he should be made Pope. John of Calabria was generally reputed a Prophet, & a man of great learning. Yet John of Calabria was so far from railing against your Popes, that (if Bellarmine say true) he spake very honorably of them. And therefore his silence, in this case, doth not help you.

Yea, but Dantes the Italian Poet, would surely have touched this story, if he had heard any inkling of it.

Why so? Dantes found fault only with six of your Popes, viz. with Anastasius the 2, Nicolas the 3, Boniface the 8, Clement the 5, John the 22, and Celestine the 5, as Bellarmine notes. Whereby it is plain that he never purposed to rave up all the filth which he found written of your Popes. Questionlesse, he might well have heard of this, for he lived after Martinus Polonus, and in Martinus days the report of this was common. Have you anymore to say?

Yea And not only the Latin writers, but even the greek Historiographers, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Curopalatas, and others, that wrote before Martinus Polonus, of matters concerning the Latin Church in those days, and were no friends to the same, and would have been content of such an advantage against it, write nothing thereof at all. Which is an evident proof there was no such matter.

What? an evident proof?

Yea: an evident proof, which you may perceive by Sutcliffe's answer to father Parsons (as he calls him) for he never, I warrant you, so much as once names these Greek Historiographers, but suppresseth that cunningly, or rather maliciously, because he could frame no colorable answer unto it.

D. Sutcliffe, whom you scornfully call Sutcliffe, never intended to trouble himself, or his reader, with laying open Parsons foolery in every particular. Otherwise assure yourself, he would not have 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 Mark, who sat, as diverse of your own histories note, 2 years 8 months, and 20 days? And had you not another Pope called Marcellus, who sat above 5 years?

We had. But what of that?

Your Pontacus, and Genebrard confess, that all the Greek writers in a manner, omit to speak of the former. And that all Greek writers without exception, omit to speak of the latter. Now if you, notwithstanding their passing by of these, be yet persuaded that these were Popes, why may you not rest persuaded that there was a Pope Joan, though they do pass by her, and write not one word of her? I hope you believe many things, whereof they write nothing. We read in your Legend, yea In your Mass books, that Heraclius the Emperor when he would have entered in by the gate, by which our Savior went to his passion, clad like a king, with the cross on his shoulders: that he was miraculously hindered, and could not get through till he had cast off his princely attire, and put off his hole and his shoes. Do not you believe this? I am sure you do. Yet Gretzer acknowledgeth, that the Grecians, such as Cedrenus and Zonoras, write nothing of this, professing that he likes it never 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 ever writ of such an accident? It seems that they did: because Chalcocondylas a Grecian of later years hath writ thereof, as ⁱ before I have shown you. For, from whence could he have it, but from the Grecians his ancestors? You must bring more evident proof then this is, or else you will never persuade any man offense and reason, that the story of Pope Joan, which is commended to us by so great a cloud of witnesses, is fabulous.

Why, but Hermannus Contractus, and Conradus Abbas Vrspergensis, and others mo, write nothing of this Joan of yours.

And what of that? will you conclude thereupon, that there was never any such woman Pope? Tell me in good earnest, do arguments taken from authority of a few men, hold negatively? 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 saith Bellarmine: Nihil concludi ex argumentis ab authoritate negative. Non enim sequitur, Lucas, Paulus & Seneca, non dicunt Petrum fuisse Romae, igitur non fuit Petrus Romae. Non enim isti tres omnia dicere debuerunt; & plus creditor tribus testibus affirmantibus, quàm mille nihil dicentibus; modo isti non negent, quod alij affirmant: that is, I answer: negative arguments are naught worth. For it follows not, that S. Peter was never 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, deserve more credit then a thousand who stand mute, not denying that which is witnessed by the three. And in another place, Certe (saith Bellarmine) magis credi debet tribus testibus affirmantibus, quàm infinitis nihil dicentibus: that is, Verily a man should rather believe three witnesses speaking to a cause, then infinite, who neither speak pro nor con. Again, tell me whether Denis Bishop of Athens, was not afterward B. of Paris; though. Ado B. of Triers in Germany, and Soudas a Greek writer, make no mention of that his second Bishopric? Your Lipomanus resolves upon Metaphrastes, and one Michael Syngelus his word, that Denis was B. of Paris, though Ado and Soudas speak not of it. Their passing it over in silence, doth not prejudice Metaphrastes and Syngelus report, who say he was B. of Paris, in Lipomanus opinion And why then though these and many mo, say nothing of Pope Joan, might there not be such a Pope, since as many and as learned as they do reckon her among the Popes? Salmeron, one of your prime Jesuits, notes, that when one Historian reports a matter, and another passeth by it, the latters silence doth not prejudice 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.

Yea but there are in the Popes library six or seven tables of Popes, wherein there is no mention of her.

And what of that? Your Popes Librarie is compared b Baronius to a draw net, which gathers together good and bad. Your Popes Librarie hath in it books of all sorts, approved, disproved: profitable, unprofitable. It hath counterfeit and forbidden books, as well as books of better reckoning. They are simple people ( as we read in Baronius ) who believe reports the rather, for that they are to be found in books which are in the Popes Librarie. Yet suppose these seven tables be of best note: will you yield thus much to me, that he who is numbered in these seven tables, or at least in as many, as authentical as these, as a Pope; was a Pope?

No, not I. For I know that Leo the 8. is numbered as a Pope in many tables, and in some of those seven, if not in them all. And yet. I am of Baronius mind, that Leo the eight was an intruder and an usurper: and that he was not worthy to be called a Pope. But why asked you of me this question?

If this be no good argument: Leo the eight is numbered among thee Popes in seven tables that are in the Popes Librarie, or in seven as authentical as these in the Popes Library, ergo Leo the 8. was a Pope: What reason have you to think yours good, which is this in effect: Joan the woman Pope is not numbered among the Popes in seven tables which are in the Popes Librarie: Ergo there was no such Joan a woman Pope? If seven tables speaking out for a Pope, do not convince the being of such a Pope: why should their silence convince the not being of a Pope? Might they not as well leave out one who had been Pope, as put in one who never was Pope?

But why should they have left her out?

Partly for her sexes sake, because she was a woman; and partly in regard of the filthiness of her fact. For so your stories note. And this need not seem strange to you, if you would but observe that other Popes, upon other occasions, have been passed by, by diverse, as no Popes. As for example: Felix the 2. was a Pope and a Martyr, as Bellarmine teacheth. For Felicem 2. vt Papam & Martyrem Ecclesia Catholica veneratur, saith Bellarmine. And the sat in the Popedom one year, four months, and two days, as we read in Platina. Yet by Genebrards confession, Marcellinus omits to speak of him in his Chronicle, because he was suspected of heresy. And for the same cause, or some such like cause, S. Austin and Optatus mention him not among the Popes, in their memorial of Popes. Nor yet Bristow in his table of Popes, which is printed with his wise demands. In like manner, that one Cyriacus was Pope, it is acknowledged by diverse. Yet it is rar • to find him in any catalogue of Popes. For as 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 Popedom, not for devotion, but for the love that he bare to certain wenches. Damasus the second, hath his place in many popish Chronicles in the throng of Popes: yet there are many on the other side, who let him go for one that is naught, and never number him. And in much like sort they deal with others.

If Pope Joan were omitted for the filthiness of her fact, why was that close stool reserved; and that monument of hers, whereof you told me before, set up in one of the high streets in Rome? For the stool and the image were as like to continue the memory of her, as any record in writing. To be plain with you, I do not see how you can rid your hands of contradiction in this point.

Well enough. For may not some be of one opinion, some of another? May not some think good to continue the memory of that, which others, for shame of the world, would have forgotten? Did not some of your fellow Papists in France deny, that John Chastell was taught by the Jesuits to murder Henry the 4. of France, because they were loath to make the Jesuits odious: and yet did not others help to erect a pillar of stone near to the kings palace, whereby so much was notified? If any man should affirm, that the same man who omitted Pope Joan for the filthiness of her fact, erected such a monument of her in the streets, and prescribed such a stool to be kept for such a purpose, I know not how he could deliver himself from contradiction. But speaking of diverse men, his speech hangeth well enough together: there is no show of contradictiō in it. For further proof where of, it is worthy your consideration, that when Paul the third, moved with the spirit of God (as Harding saith) and desirous to reform the Church, gave charge to his best learned, wisest and most godly zealous men that he knew, 4 Cardinals, three Bishops, and two others, to inquire and search out what abuses and disorders were in the Church, and especially in the Court of Rome: which they did, offering up unto him a libel containing the sum of all their proceedings. Some thought their labors worthy of registering: others thought them fitter to be burnt, which appears by this, that the libel is printed in Crabs edition of the Council, anno 1551. and yet put into the Index librorum prohibitorum, by Paul the 4, (one of those four Cardinals who exhibited it to Paul the 3:) and left out of Dominicus Nicolinus his edition of the Councils at Venice, auspiciis Sixti Quinti, in the year 1585. and out of Seuerinus Binius his edition at Colen, 1606.

Yea, but give me leave I pray you. If Pope Joan were omitted for the filthiness of her fact: yet should there have been mention made of the vacancy of the Sea, for that time she was Pope, or else there will be a manifest error in Chronology.

A manifest error in Chronology? A foul absurdity indeed, to miss two years in reckoning. But I trow there are fouler then this, how ever the matter will be salued. For Onuphrius and Bristow reckon 230 Popes to Gregory the 13, and 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. every man reckons 14. which makes up the number of 235. Yet Versteganus in his table, printed at Antwerpe 1590, numbers no mo then 231. Again, do not some of your Chronologies record, that Eu •• ristus sat 13 years, whereas others say, he sat but nine year? Do not some of them say, that Denis sat 11 years. Others that he sat but 2. years? And do not these differences, and such as these are, whereof we have spoken before in part, argue manifest errors in your Chronologies? If no further inconveniences follow upon Pope Joan’s omission then a manifest error in Chronology for that space she lived, we may well enough believe that some omitted her, not for that she was not, but that they were ashamed of her. For 2. years and odd months break no square in your Chronologies, no more then an inch with a bungling Carpenter.

Yea, but nobody within 400. years after mentions her Popedom. And is it possible, that all writers should so conspire together, that the truth thereof could never be certainly known, till 400. years after?

You lavish, when you talk of 400. years after. For I have proved unto you already, by the books that are yet extant, that it was known sooner. But suppose we had no writer who lived within 400. years of Pope Joan, to produce for proof: will you (in that respect) deny the story? Do not you Papists commend unto us many stories as true, for which you can bring us no proof out of any writer, who lived within 400. years after? You tell us of an Image of Christ, which was made by Nicodemus, who came to our Savior by night, for fear of the Jews: and of it you report wonderful things. But you are not able to name the man, (shall I say within 400. years of Nicodemus? nay not within 600. years of Nicodemus ) who writeth any such thing. Again, you tell us, that S. Luke drew certain pictures of the virgins Marie. But Theodorus Lector is the ancientest man, that your friends allege for proof of this. And he Pliued at least 500. years after. Thirdly, you write that our Savior Christ, wiping his face with an handkerchief, imprinted his Image therein: and sent it to Agbarus for a token. But you can name no Author for this, but Euagrius who lived 600. years after Christ. Fourthly, 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 yourselves, who write, that there can be no proof made thereof out of any writer who lived within 400 years of Charles the great his time.

That the virgins Marie made that coat of our Saviors, which was without seam, our Rhemists teach, and Others of you add to that, that as our Savior grew in height & in breadth, so the coat on his back grew. Do you think that there is an Author within 400. years after our Sauiors time that taught so.

Turrian reports, and Gretser after him: That the Apostles made this Canon in a Council 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 Jesus Christi, ipsius{que} seruorum, contra idola & Iudaeos, neque errent in idolis, neque similes sint Iudaeis. That is, Let not the faithful people be deceived by idols: but let them on the contrary part, make the image of our Savior Christ both God and man, and the images of his servants; and let them not be deceived by idols, nor show themselves like unto the Jews. But I do not believe that this can be proved to be a Canon of that Council, by any writer within 400. years of that time. Your Rabbins allege two Councils, the one kept (as they say) in the year 303. the other in the year 324. both sounding much to the Popes praise, and advancing of his authority. But for anything I read, the most learned among you can bring no proof within 400 years after, that any such Councils were then kept. Nicolas 1. who lived in the year 860, is the first, whom Bellarmine names for that purpose.

Why, what say you • to our ancient English histories written in the Latin tongue, to wit, William of Malmsburie, Henry Huntingdon, Roger Houedon, Florentius Vigorniensis, and Matthew of Westminster? For I have one argument of no small moment, (as it seemeth to me) taken from them, for the overthrowing of the fable of Pope Joan.

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

The first four lived 500. years agone, and the latest of them 300. years.

Fie, 500. years agone? William Malmesbury continues his story to the year 1143: and Henry Huntingdon his story till the reign of Henry the second, which was 1154. and Roger Houedon continues his story to the year 1201. which argues that the first four lived not 500. years agone. But what is your argument out of them?

No one of them all makes mention of this Pope.

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

No, by no means, For our English writers above others should have mentioned her, if any such had been.

And why, I pray you.

Because king Alfred living in Rome when Leo the 4 died, and when Pope Benedict the 3. was chosen, must needs have known also Pope Joan, if any such had entered and lived two years and a half between them.

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

Because we read that his father delivered him into the hands of Pope Leo the 4. to be instructed, and brought up by him. And that the Pope received him with great kindness, and detained him there with him.

That Alfred's father sent him to be anointed king, and that the Pope anointed him at his fathers motion, we read indeed. But that his father delivered him to Leo to be instructed & brought up by him, we read not in Malmesbury, nor Huntingtŏ, nor Houedon, nor Florentius: nor yet that the Pope detained him there with him. But perhaps you can prove he stayed at Rome, though it be not recorded that Leo detained him with him. Now therefore let me hear your argument.

That Alfred lived in Rome some number of years, seemeth evident. First, for that he returned more learned, and otherwise better qualified then any Saxon king had been before him.

This argument is framed out of your fingers ends, and not out of the stories. For the stories mention two journeys which Alfred took to Rome: the former, when he was five years old, in the year 853. in which he was accompanied with the nobility: the second when he was six years old, in the year 854, in which he went in his fathers company, who stayed in Rome a year. Now though I find it not set down in particular, that he returned with his father: yet it is likely by the circumstances. For the stories note, that he was always brought up in the Kings Court. And it is without all doubt, whensoever he returned, that he returned not better learned, nor better qualified. For at 12 years old and upward, he knew not a letter on the book • which the stories with great grief report. What is your next argument?

That Alfred lived in Rome some number of years, seemeth evident, for that we find no mention of his acts in England until the reign of his third brother Athebred. upon the year 871. at the famous battle of Reading in Barkeshire fought against the Danes.

Alfred was but 22 years old in the year 871. and therefore no marvel, though being in England we read nothing of his acts. Yet, not to speak of his hawking and hunting in England, in his younger years, whereof the stories speak much: we read of his marriage three years before the battle of Reading, and of his going to aide the King of Mercia the same year. So that this proceeds of a false ground, as doth the former. Wherefore unless you have better arguments to disprove the story of Pope Joan, you may prove yourself a fool, but never it a fable.

I am able to prove it a fable. For our foresaid writers do not only not make any mention of Pope Joan, that came between Leo the fourth and Benedict the third: but do expressly exclude the same, by placing the one immediately after the other, and assigning them their distinct number of years before mentioned, to wit, eight and three months to Leo, and two years and six months immediately following, to Benedict the third.

Who is your first witness of the truth of this?

Malmesbury in Fastis reg. & Episcop. Angl. 847. & 855.

Where might a man see that book of Malmsburies? for I never read nor heard before of any such book made by him. True it is, that in the end of Malmesbury, Huntingdon, Houeden, Ethelwerdus, and Ingulphus, ( 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 Malmesbury. You may as well say, that Malmesbury made the Index rerum & verborum, which follows after it. But who is your next witness?

Florentius in his Chronicle.

Doth Florentius in his Chronicle give eight years and three months to Leo? Now for shame of the world leave lying. Florentius notes, that Leo began his papacy 853. and Benedict the 3,858: whereby it is apparent, that in Florentius opinion Leo sat but five years. So is it apparent, that in his opinion Benedict sat five years: 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 five years. So that in prosecuting of this argument, which is of your own devising, you have scarce spoken one true word.

I pray you tell me how they called this Joan when she read publicly in the Schools at Rome?

They called her John. How else?

What? John? and was she called John after her election to the Popedom too?

Yea: why not?

That's not likely, For Sergius a few years before had brought in a laudable custom: that the Pope elect should not step out of the Conclaue, before he had changed his proper name.

Indeed there are 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.

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

So are they greatly deceived, 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, as Baronius notes. The first who changed his name, was Sergius the third, and yet not for the filthiness of his name, but in reverence to S. Peter. Cum enim ill 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, even the prince of the Apostles, whose name he changed from Simon to Peter, as we read in Baronius in the same place.

I never heard this before. But I • like it the better if it be in Baronius. For I cannot say too much good of that man. Marry I had rather thought you would have taken exception against me, in respect that Platina ascribes this custom of the Popes, in changing their names, to John the 12. who being called Octauian before his Papacie, thought that name too warlicke for him after he was made Pope, and therefore took the name of John. Now I could easily have replied unto this. For besides that Platina speaks amiss in many other points, it is not likely that John the twelfth made any conscience by what name he was called, seeing he lived as licentiously after he was Pope, as before.

You have your learning at the second hand. Have you not?

I have this out of Florimondus I confess. But what of that?

Your Leare-masters deceive you, and especially Florimondus. For Platina is one of them who ascribes the original of this papal custom to Sergius the second; for which he is reproved by Onuphrius. Onuphrius, and not Platina, ascribes the original hereof to John the 12. Iohannem hunc 13. primum esse inueni qui nomen in pontificatu mutarit, saith Onuphrius. Nam cum antea Octauianus vocaretur, gentili nomine omisso, tanquam parùm maiestati & religioni pontificis idoneo, se Iohannem appellauit: that is, John the 12. was the first (as far as I can learn) who changed his name when he was made Pope. Whereas before he was called Octauian, he left that heathenish name, as little beseeming the Popes majesty and religion, and called himself John.

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

Yet Onuphrius, in Florimondus opinion, was a most painful Antiquarie. But what if Baronius say as much? will you not believe him for Baronius sake?

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

Look you and Baronius to that, how both tales will hang together. But assure yourself, Baronius saith both. For notwithstanding the former assertion, coming to speak of John the 12, he useth these words, Hic reuera primus inuentus qui mutauit sibi nomen, vt qui ex Octauiano vocari voluerit Johannes, pro mutata, non exuta tyrannide. Nam qui dictus est à patre, ob temporale vrbis dominiū, Octauianus: obspirituale, nomine Johannes appellari idcirco voluit, vel quod eo nomine eius patruus Johannes 11 Papasit appellatus: vel vt in nomine saltem been posset audire in adulatorijs acclamationibus, quibus male vsurpatum proferri soleret sacrum illud eloquium [Fuit homo missus à Deo, cuius nomen erat Johannes:] that is, This (in truth) is the first who changed his name, who of Octauian would needs be called John: and not for that he meant to leave his tyranny, but for that he resolved to use another kind of tyranny. For he, who was called by his father Octauian, in respect of his temporal authority in the city, would now in respect of his spiritual be called John, either for that his uncle John the 11. was called so, or for that he desired to hear well, at least for his names sake, whilst in clawing and fawning acclamatiōs, the people fondly applied unto him that good speech, There was a man that was sent from God, whose name was John. Thus Baronius. Have you not another question to ask?

^e Yes. Who was Pope Joan’s father?

What is that to the purpose?

Much. For the histories expressly set down, who was the father of Linus, of Cletus, of Clemens, and of all the rest of the Popes. And would they not have done as much for her, if she had been Pope?

It is false, that the histories expressly 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 John the 19. And that I will prove unto you by the histories: for in them we read, that Higini genealogia non inuenitur. No man knows of what parentage Higinus was. And Dionysii generationem inuenire non potuimus, we could not find out Denis the Popes Ancestors. And Johan. 19. cognomen & patris ignoratur. It is unknown of what surname, or country, John the 19. was. Again, In the histories it is expressly written, that Urban the fourth was begotten, ex patre sutore veteramentario: that is, of a Cobbler. That John the 22. was filius veteramentarij, resarcitoris videlicet sotelarium. That is, the son of a Botcher. That Benedict the 11. was filius lotricis pauperculae. The son of a poor laundresse. That Benedict the 12. was Molitoris filius: the son of a Milner. That Sixtus the 4. was the son of a Mariner. That Adrian the 6. was a Clothworkers son, or else a Brewers. That Sixtus Quintus was a base and beggarly fellows son, even the son, as is said, of a Swincheard. But what the names of these men's fathers were, that is not expressly written. You may peruse many histories, and find nothing to that purpose. Your Alexander the 5, confessed, Se nec parents, nec fratres, aut aliquem ex agnatis, cognatisue suis vnquam vidisse. That he never saw either his father, or mother, or brother, or any of his kindred. And can you tell me, what was his fathers name?

Well Sir, to be brief with you, I prove it a fable thus: Either this Pope Joan was young or old when she was chosen. If she were young, that was against the custom to choose young Popes, as may appear by the great number of Popes that lived in that dignity, above the number of Emperors that succeeded often in their youth. But if she were old when she was chosen, then how did she bear a child publicly in procession, as you heretics affirm? Answer me this: for to this Sutcliffe saith nothing in his answer to Parsons, as he calls him. And no marvel, for nothing can with any color be pretended, as B. C. assures himself, in his Dolefull knell of Thomas Bell.

I deny the ground of this your reason, to wit, That this Pope Joan was either young, or old, when she was chosen. For learned men devide the whole course of man's 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 have been, and so neither old, nor young: for Leo the 10. was chosen Pope at 38. years of age. For he was not 46. years of age when he died, and yet he sat as Pope 8 years, 8 months, and 20 days. And Gregory the 11, fuit dum eligebatur in Papam forsitan circa 35. annos: was about 35 years old, as Theodoricus de Niem, and Massonus witness. Again, she might have been chosen young, for any custom you Papists have to the contrary. For Boniface the 9. (as some write) erat annorum 34. dum eligebatur in Papam: was but 34. when he was chosen Pope: and Innocent the 3, was but 30. Yea she might have been one of the youths of the parish: for (not to speak of the boy-Pope: I mean, Benedict the 9, who was chosen Pope about 12 years old:) John the 13, alâs 12, In iuuenili & florida aetate creature Pontifex: was made Pope when he was in his prime: that is, about the 18 year of his age, as Baronius gathereth by circumstances. But why might not she have been old, since we read, that old women have borne children? Henricus Sueuus Imperator ex vxore quinquagenaria genuit Fridericum 2, saith Massonus. Henry the Emperor begot Frederick the 2 of his wife, who was fifty years old. Machutus Episcopus ortus est matre plusquam Sexagenaria, saith Petrus de Natalibus. Bishop Machutus his mother was above threescore years 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, saith Franciscus Junius. A few years since, I was entreated to see a woman in this county, above fifty and six years old, who was delivered of two boys at a birth. N. D. whose steps you follow, hath one good property: for he is always like himself; he is no changeling. He began with lies, and goeth on with fooleries; yet in giving the reason why it was not the custom to choose young Popes, he shows himself most fool. For the multitude of Popes above the Emperors, came not by reason of their age, but by other accidents. In the first 300 years, while the Popes were generally good, they were cut off by martyrdom. For though it be not true, (as Onuphrius notes well) that all the Popes from S. Peters time to Sylvester, were martyrs: which yet is confidently avouched by 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 poisoning, and evil entreating one of another. If you peruse diligently the stories of their lives, you shall find that of forty Popes, already dead and gone to their own place, there was not one that sat a full year: you shall find that within compass of nine years, or little above, there were nine several Popes: you shall find, that one man, in 13. years, poisoned six Popes: you shall find, that God in his justice cut them off, for their wicked and abhominable lives.

Yea, but it is a most unlikely thing, that the whole Roman Clergy would choose a Pope without a beard, especially a stranger.

And why might not the Roman Clergy, as well as the Clergy of Conftantinople ( whom you upbraid with such a fact) do such a deed? especially if all your Clergy in those days (as some of you write) were shaven? For men by shaving may make themselves look like women, and women by often shaving may make themselves look like men. Certainly a learned man among yourselves, imputes the error of Joan the woman's choice to this, that your Clergy were then shaven. For by the means of shaving (saith he) the people were so disguised, that men and women were scant known asunder. And by this it happened that a woman was chosen Pope of Rome, to the perpetual rebuke of that same holy order. The same reason is given also by Chalcocondylas. And by it is another of your arguments answered, which by N. D. is touched in these words: How did they not discern her to be a woman or an Eunuke, seeing she had no beard in her old age? For it being ordinary, that the Clergy should be shaven, why should they dislike her the more for want of a beard?

Yea but was there none, that either by countenance or voice, or other actions of her, could discern the fraud?

Look you to that. But this is sure, if your stories be true, that diverse women have lived longer among men in men's apparel unknown, then dame Joan lived in the Popedom. For Marina ( they say) lived all her life among Monks, and nobody knew but she was a Monk. Euphrosina lived 36 years amongst Monks, and was reputed for a Monk. So did Eugenia, Pelagia, and Margareta, and no man suspected them of fraud.

Yea, but how happened it, her own lovers had not discovered or her incontinent life?

That her lovers did not discover her, it is no wonder. For partners in mischief, are good at concealements. As for her incontinent life, that discovered her at length. God, according to his promise, bringing forth the shadow of death to light, that is, making known her secret naughtiness.

Yea, but how could she pass through priesthood, and other Ecclesiastical orders? how by so many under-offices, and degrees, as they must before they come to be Popes, without descrying? For 900 years from S. Peter, no man was chosen Pope, that was not brought up in the Roman Church, and passed through priesthood, and other Ecclesiastical orders.

That's not so. For Dionysius was made Pope of a Monk: and Ualentinus in the time of his Deaconship, before he was priested. And so was Benedict the fifth too. And as for Leo the eight, he was chosen being but a lay man: Per Othonem 1. homo laicus Leo intrusus est, saith Baronius. Your own Genebrard did note, that this Note of Onuphrius was worth nothing: yea that it was false, as many other of his notes are.

Yea but Polonus and others say, that this Joan brought forth a child as she went in procession. Now it is not credible, that a woman who had gone so many months with child, would then especially go abroad when there was most fear she might be discovered.

This is like the rest. For the time of child-birth is uncertain. For though women go usually ten months, yet sometimes they come sooner, at nine or eight, yea at seven months, as Physicians have observed. Honester women then Pope Joan, have fallen in travel upon the high way, ere ever they were aware, that they were so near their reckoning, as Theophilact observeth: for nouit mulier quod pariet, quando vero, non nouit, saith he: Nam non paucae 8 mense pepererunt etiam in itinere, nihil praescientes: that is, A woman knows she shall be delivered, but the time she knows not: for diverse have been delivered in their eighth month, as they have been in their journeys, never dreaming of any such thing towards. What is your next exception?

They say, she was buried without any solemnities in the world. And how is that credible, seeing it is a barbarous and savage part, to deprive them of the honor of solemn burial, which have borne the greatest offices?

Is it so? Do we not read in Scripture, that God in his justice doth use to serve the greatest princes so, who dishonor him? Do we not read, that Jehoiachim king of Judah was to be buried as an asse is buried? &c. Yea, do we not read in some of your own stories, that some of your Popes have had as small solemnities? Boniface 7. post mortem John. 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, saith Baronius. Boniface the 7. who sat after John the 15. four months, died a sudden death: and he was so hateful to his own followers, that after his death they beat him, and ran him into the body with lances, and dragged him by the feet, all naked, till they came to the field which is near the place where Constantine's horse stands; there they threw him from them, and there they left him.

Yea, but it was never heard of before, nor never in use among Christians, to bury a man in the high ways.

No? Is it not written, that Deborah, Rebeckahs nourse, was buried under an Oke? and that Rahel, Jacob's wife, a far honester woman then Pope Joan, was buried in the way to Ephrath? though if it had not, yet Pope Joan was but right served to be buried so: for it was never heard of before, nor never in use among Christians, that a Pope should be delivered of a child. The extraordinarinesse of the case, deserved extraordinary exemplary usage. Your friend Papyrius Massonus, much commended by your Cardinal Baronius, holds opinion, that if there had been any such Pope, the Romans could have done no less (in equity) then to have hanged her up in chains after her death. Because he finds not that she was shamefully enough handled after her death, he denies the story.

Papyrius Masso is a worthy man indeed. Vt ventus fumum, euanescere totam in auras fabulam fecit: he hath disproved this tale thoroughly in Baronius judgment. But yet I think with Florimondus, they should have allowed her Christian burial: they should have made her a tomb: they should have written Epitaphs on her.

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

If she had had a tomb made for her, and Epitaphs on her they would have been forth coming. For as Florimondus writes, Sepulchrorum nunquam intermoritur memoria: Tombestones continue forever.

Indeed I have read, that by law it was provided, that no man should deface Tomb-stones. And I have 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 sepulchers, wrought after the old fashion, cut hollow, like a chest, out of one stone, the covers whereof are still whole. But I do not read, that men can show, which was Priamus his grave, which Hectors, &c. Yet but for evil fingers, I could have told you where Pope Joan’s tomb was. Til Pius Quintus cast it into Tiber, it was to be seen in Rome.

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

Men do not die instantly who are taken with an Apoplexy, they may live long after, and be cured thereof as Physicians say. Your Florimondus herein is out of his element. Neither did she die instantly, though it seems suddenly. For she was delivered of a boy before her death.

Was she delivered of the boy wherewithal she went? and what was then the cause of her death? Florimondus accounts this as one of the absurdities which follows on this tale. Imo, vt aiunt, ( saith he) masculum pepererat, quid igitur mortem repentinam attulit? If a woman be once delivered of the fruit of her womb, there is no danger of death in his opinion.

Commend me to him, if ever you see him. And ask the Woodcocke, if he have not known women die in child-bed, as well as in child-birth. Rahel was delivered of her son Benjamin, and yet died shortly. Phineas wife was delivered of her son Ichabod, and yet died presently after. And if they died so: why not Pope Joan? I pray you let me hear what exceptions some wiser men take against this story. For I am weary of Florimondus fopperies.

How is she said to have gone from the palace of S. Peter to S. John Lateran, whereas the Popes lay not then in the Vatican, but at S. John Lateran it self?

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

Platina witnesseth that the Popes lay not in the Uatican till Boniface the 9. his days, to wit, till the year 1350.

Boniface the ninth, lived in the year 1390. not 1350. wherefore in that circumstance you fail. And so you do in fathering such a fancy upon Platina. For Platina reports only 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 have gone to see the Lateran; for he had other houses to solace himself, and his Courtiers in, besides the Lateran. He dwelt not always in that: for Gregory the fourth, made two goodly houses even out of the ground, for the Popes use, as your Anastasius testifieth. And Leo the 3. (as we read in the same Anastasius ) made another goodly house near to S. Peters Church, which stands in the Vatican, wherein Leo the fourth gave entertainment to Ludouike the Emperor. But besides, the stories do not report she went from S. Peters palace to the palace of the Lateran: but from S. Peters Church to the Lateran Church. For she was delivered as they went in procession. Now she might go from S. Peters Church to the Lateran Church, and yet dwell in the palace by the Lateran. For Popes began not always their processions at the next Church to them. Leo the third appointed to go in procession three several days before ascension day. And he began the first day, at one of S. Mary's Churches, and ended at Saint Saviors Church. The second day he began at Saint Sabina the martyrs Church, and ended at S. Paul's. The third day he began at S. Crosses Church in Jerusalem, and ended at S. Lawrences without the walls. So that this question of yours is answered. Let me know if you have anymore to say.

You shall: and first I will prove it a fable out of their own mouths that report it.

That's a piece of cunning in good earnest. But how I pray you?

Marry, even as Saint Mark the Evangelist proved the Jews liars, by the inconvenience of their testimonies.

What mean you by the inconvenience of their testimonies?

Their disagreeing one from another.

But so did not S. Mark. For those false witnesses, whose testimony (as he notes) was inconvenient, agreed well enough in their tale. They only failed in this, that the matter which they witnessed against him was not capital, though it had been true. For to promise the reedifying of a Church in three days, is neither fellonie nor treason. And in this respect S. Mark observes that their testimony was inconvenient, meaning to condemn him to death. But what great disagreement have you observed among the relators of this tale?

Infinite. Insomuch that a man may well think God hath taken anew the same course with these, which he took of old with them who occasioned him to say: Come let us confound their language, that one of them know not what another saith.

That's much, I long to hear the particulars.

So you shall by and by. But first I pray you tell me by the way, why Marianus the first broacher of this tale, gave her such a new fangled, and new devised name as Joan? Why took he that name which in former ages was proper to men only, and by changing a letter made it a woman's name? Florimondus cannot reach the reason of this.

Florimondus is a proper Squire, and you are a wise man to demand such a question. Read the Scriptures, and you shall find, that the name of Joan is no new devised name, nor proper to men only. For they mention one Joan, the wife of Chuza. Or, if for fear of proving an heretic you dare not read the Scriptures, read your Legends and Festiuals, and in them you shall find that your Sea-saint Nicolas his mother was called Joan. If some should hear you demand such a question, they would think the fool rid you. Wherefore no more of this if you respect your credit: fall to show me the manifold disagreement which you promised.

I will. And first observe with me the confusion that is among them, touching her name before her Papacy. Some say she was called Agnes, some Gilbert, some Isabel, some Margaret, some Tutta, or Iutta, others Dorothie.

Who calls her (I pray you) either Dorothy, or Iutta, or Tutta? whoever called her Margaret, or Isabell? yea who of the ancient sort of writers, called her Gilbert, or Agnes? In some of later time I find some difference, one calling her Gilbert, and another Agnes. But of all those whom I brought in, to give in evidence against her, there is not past one or two, who either before, or after her Papacie, gives her any other name then Joan. And for ought I know, there is no man, either old, or young, whoever christened her Dorothie, or Iutta, or Isabell, or Margaret. Know you any that have done so?

No. For I find no authors cited for proof of this, neither by Florimondus, nor by Baronius, And I can say no more then I find in them. But what say you to the next difference? Do not some of your witnesses feign her John the 7, some John the 8, some John the 9?

Who feignes her to be John the 9? Not a man that I know. If you bring not some author for the proof of this point, you must give me leave to think you speak over.

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

Baronius and N. D. are as like to speak over as you, for they are Papists: wherefore I neither believe them nor you, further then I see reason. And herein neither they nor you show reason. For none of you cite so much as one author, good or bad for it. Besides your Florimondus confesseth, that we are only troubled about this, whether we should call her John the 7, or John the 8. He chargeth us not with naming her John the 9.

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

That difference is not so great. For the like may be shown in other Popes, which yet you yourselves confess were Popes. But who stiles her either John the 7, or John the 8? verily neither Marianus Scotus, nor Sigebert, nor Go • efridus Viterbiensis, nor Polonus, nor Platina, nor Palmerius, nor Trithemius, nor Fasciculus Temporum, nor Krantius, nor Alfonsus e Carthagena, nor Textor, call her either John the 7, or John the 8: but simply John, or Joan. For it seems they were of Onuphrius mind in this, that numeri notam habere non debuit sacri ordinis non capax. That seeing she was not capable of priesthood, she should not go for one in the number of John's.

Yes, by your leave, Platina stiles her John the eight, and the next 9. For which he is reproved by Onuphrius, and that upon the reason which you mentioned. For these are Onuphrius words. Johannes hic omnino 8. non 9. est, vt à Platina describitur: Nam etsi Johannes foemina Papa, quam profitetur, fuisset, non tamen numeri notam habere debuisset sacri ordinis non capax: that is, This John questionless is the eighth, and not the ninth, as Platina accounts him: for though John the woman, whom he talks of, had been Pope, yet seeing she was not capable of Priesthood, she should not go for one in the number of John's.

Platina stiles her not John the eighth. Onuphrius, or somebody for him, hath abused both Platina and you. For proof whereof I appeal to Platina, printed in the year 1481. which was the year wherein Platina died; and to the next edition Anno 1485. For speaking of John the woman in those ancient editions, he sets no numeral note upon her head, but begins his story thus, Johannes Anglicus, ex Maguntiaco oriundus, &c. John English, borne at Mainz. Neither stiles he the next 9. but 8. For coming to that Popes life, Johannes 8. patria Romanus, &c. saith he: John the eighth, by his country a Roman, &c. For further proof of which later point, I appeal to the later editions, whereunto Onuphrius annotations are annexed. For though we read thus in them, Johannes nonus, patria Romanus, &c. John the ninth, by his country a Roman, &c. yet, that that reading is false, and the ancient reading true, it appears by that which is written of the next Popes life, to wit, Martin the second, even in those later editions. For Platina showing how Martin lived in the time of Charles the third, adds presently, quem ab Iohanne 8. coronam accepisse scripsimus, that is, who was crowned by John the eighth, as we have written. Now Charles the third was crowned by John next before Martin, according to Platina. Wherefore the next before Martin was John the 8. in Platina his account, and not John the ninth, as Onuphrius would make us believe. Which oversight, or fraud of Onuphrius, was not so great, but that by this means he is forced to alter Platina his numeral note, set to all the John's that follow, to call him John the tenth, whom Platina calls John the ninth; to call him the eleventh, whom Platina calls the tenth; to call him the thirteenth, whom Platina calls the twelfth, and so unto the last Baldesar Cossa, who was in number of John's according to the ancient editions, the 23, and not the 24, as he is numbered in the editions with Onuphrius notes. But say on, what other disagreement have you observed among the reporters of this story?

Some say, she began her Papacie in the year 853, some in the year 854, some in the year 857, some in 858, some in 904, some in 653, some in 686.

Why name you not the Authors that write thus? For to this day I never read or heard of any who placed her either about the year 653. or 686. or 904. All the above-named Historiographers mention her within the compass of five years. Till you bring forth your proof, there is great reason to suspect your truth.

Peradventure you will suspect my truth, if I tell you that some say, she succeeded Leo the fourth, some Leo the fifth, • me Benedict the third, some Martin the first, some John the fifth.

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

Yea, but you have little reason to believe Bellarmine therein, For Polonus writes, that she succeeded Leo the 5. And so doth Sigebert too.

That Leo, whom Sigebert placeth next before Joan the woman, is numbered the fifth, it is some error in the print. For he names but three Popes of that name before that Leo. Wherefore when Sigebert is corrected, you have no color of exception from him. No more have you from Polonus. For though according to his account, Leo before this woman Pope, be Leo the fifth: yet he is the same man whom others call Leo the fourth. Polonus reckens one Leo, as Pope in the year 698, whom others reckon not at all, which is the cause of the difference between him and others in the account of Leoes that follow. But in the persons all agree. What is the next disagreement?

Some say, she sat Pope one year, one month, and 4 days. Some two years, two months, and 4 days. Some two years and a half. Some but two years full. Uery many say, she sat one year, five months, and three days. And they are no small number who say, she sat but barely four months.

If this be true, Bellarmine was far wide. For he writes, that Omnes qui istum Iohannem admittunt, dicunt eum vixisse in Pontificatu duobus annis, & quinque mensibus. All that acknowledged such a woman Pope, say, she sat as Pope two years, and five months. He knew none (no more then 1) that gave her so little time as four months. He knew no such difference herein as you talk of. Yet among the later writers, I confess there is some difference of some few months: but Marianus and Polonus, which are two of the principal, agree upon the point. They write vniformly, that she sat two years, five months, and four days. And Platina is not far short of that sum. For by his reckoning, she sat two years, one month, and four days. But suppose the differences in these circumstances were great, and many: what is that to discredit the substance of the story? We find great difference among them who have written of Pope Lucius. For some say, he was a Roman, some a Tuskan; some say he was the son of Lucinus, some of Porphirie: some say he was chosen Pope in the year 253, some in the year 254, some in the year 255, some in the year 259, some in the year 275. Some say, he sat Pope 3 years, 3 months, and 3 days; some 3 years, and 5 months: some 3 years, 7 months, and six days; some but one year, 3 months, & 13 days; some but 8 months, and no longer. And yet there is no man denies that Lucius was Pope.

Again, do we not read, that Sergius the third began his reign in the year 905. as some say: as others, in the year 907: as a third sort, in the year 908? Do not some also write, that he succeeded Benedict the 4, others that he succeeded Formosus, others, Christopher? And is not there difference also about the time of his continuance in the Popedom? while some say he sat 7 years, 3 months, and 16 days; some 3 years only; yet whoever denied that there was such a Pope?

We read, that Formosus carcass was taken up out of his grave, by one of his successors, and brought into judgment before a Council of Bishops, and that it was spoiled of his papal robes, and clad with a lay man's garment: that it was indicted, arraigned and condemned. But among them who report this, there is great disagreement. For some say, it was taken up by Sergius the third, of whom I spake even now: some say it was taken up by Stephen the sixth, whom many call Stephen the 7: some say it had two fingers cut off, some three: some say the head was chopped off, some seem to deny that: some say, the trunk of the body was cast into Tiber, others say, it was allowed lay-man's burial. I pray you now, dare you deny the truth of this story, by reason of these differences?

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

Now see you then the disagreement, and disconueniences that are among you Papists. For though Baronius confess, it was such a villanous pranke, as was never played before: though he confess, it may seem incredible, by reason of the barbarousness of it: yet he grants it true, and auowes that they err foully, who deny that such things befell Formosus: who hold the reports for fables. Notwithstanding the manifold differences in some circumstances, he durst not cast it off as Onuphrius doth. Neither could he indeed upon Onuphrius reason. For Bellarmine saith true in this, (though he miss the truth often) that saepissime accidit vt constet de re, & non constet de modo, vel alia circumstantia. It oftentimes falls out that men are sure such a thing is done, when yet they are not sure of the manner how it was done, or of some other such like circumstance. The difference among writers about circumstance, doth not weaken any man's argument touching the substance. If it do, (to give one instance more) blot out for shame, S. Ursula and her fellows holiday, out of your Calendar: and all the prayers which you make to them in your Primers, Portesses, and Breuiaries. For there was never greater diasgreement among the relators of any story, then among the relators of that. Some say, that Vrsula was the king of Scotland's daughter: but others say, she was the king of Cornewals daughter. Some say, her father was called Maurus: but others say, he was called Dionethus, or Dionotus, or Dionocus, or Deo notus; for so diversely do they christen him. And which concerns the husband, to whom she should have been married, some write, that he was king of England: others, that he was king of little Britain. And one calls him Aetherius, another Holofernes, a third, Conanus. Now in her company, as ^c some say, there were only 11000 Ladies and gentlewomen, virgins: but as others say, there were 6000. country maidens over and above those 1100. of better rank. Besides, there were diverse Bishops, and Lord's of the Temporaltie who accompanied them. Yea Cyriacus the Pope of Rome, like a good fellow, left his Papacie, and followed these pilgrims say some, though others deny it. For some say, that they went in Pilgrimage to Rome, though others hold not that probable. Some say, they were martyred on the sea coast: some, before the gates of Colen. And some say, that all this fell out in the year 238. some, in Maximus time: some, in the year 453. Last of all, some say, that if any be buried in S: Vrsulaes Church, though they be infants newly baptized, the ground will cast them up again: whereas others say, that that is a tale of a tub.

I know not what to reply to this. But learneder Catholics will answer you, I hope. And in the mean time I will go on. By the reporters of this story she was first carried to Athens. Now there was no Athens standing at that time.

Yes that there was. For Paulus Aemilius writes, that Gotefridus was made Duke of Athens, and Prince of Achaia, about the year 1220. And afterwards, That certain Pirates invading the country of Grecia, slue the Duke of Athens, who was of the house of Brennus, and took the city. In like manner we read in Matthew Paris, that Johannes de Basing stocks Archdeacon of Legria who died in the year 1252. studied at Athens, and that he learned of the learned Grecians, many matters unknown to men of the West-Church: especially of one Constantia, the daughter of the Archbishop of Athens. Besides, Aeneas Syluins, who lived since that, doth justify, that in his time Athens was not quite razed, but carried the show of a pretty town. For Ciuitas Athenitensis (quoth he) quondam nobilissima fuit, &c. eadem nostro tempore parui oppidi speciem gerit. The noble city of Athens at this time carries but the show of a little village. Wherefore neither doth this your exception prejudice the truth of this story. Your next had need be better.

By the reporters of this story she was not only carried to Athens, but to Athens for learning. Now it is a plain case, as Bellarmine writes, that there were no schools at that time, neither in Athens, nor in any place of Grecia.

What? no schools in any place of Grecia at that time? Notes Bellarmine that? and that as a plain case? and doth he prove it too?

Yea, he proves it by diverse writers. And first by Synesius who lived a little after Basil and Nazianzens time. For Synesius writes unto his brother, that Athens retained only the bare name of an University.

And doth tha • import (think you) that in Synesius opinion there was no university at Athens? I for my part do rather think the contrary: I think Synesius meant thereby that Athens was an university, though nothing so flourishing as formerly. Questionlesse, when Bernard writ, that Peter Abailard had nothing of a Monk, saving the name and the Cowle, his meaning was not that Peter was no Monk, but rather that he was a Monk, though a sorry Monk. And I am the rather persuaded to understand Synesius words so: because Athens, in S. Basils time (about some 40. years before Synesius ) was held the mother of learning: and in regard thereof termed golden Athens by Gregory Nazienzen. For who can think, in so few years learning should quite be quenched, and that so famous an university should in so short time be utterly decayed? But let us suppose there was no university at Athens in Synesius time. What is that to prove that there was no University at Athens in Pope Joan’s time, which was 400. years after? That university might get life again in so many years. And in deed it did so: for 100. years after Synesius time, Bocthuis went to study at Athens, as Baronius confesseth: noting further, that the study of Philosophy was revived there in those days. Again, to suppose there was no university at Athens in Synesius time, what is it to prove that there were no schools in any part of Grecia in Pope Joan’s time? Now Bellarmine promised to prove that.

That is proved by Bellarmine out of Cedrenus, and Zonaras. For they record, that in the sole reign of Michael the Emperor, which fell to be about the year 856. Bardus Caesar restored learning. Cum vsque ad illud tempus per annos plurimos ita fuissent extincta omnia studia sapientiae in Greece, vt ne vestigium quidem vllum extaret.

Bellarmine wrongs Cedrenus and Zonaras, in bringing them in, to witness such a point. For they say no more, but that learning was not regarded of along time before Bardus Caesar. They say not, it was quite extinct, but almost extinct. Bardus Caesar added life unto-it, by setting up schools for every of the liberal sciences, and appointing public professors, and giving them stipends out of the Excheker, as Cedrenus and Zonaras write: but he raised it not up simply to life. For if it had been stark dead, how could he upon such a sudden have gotten professors to furnish his schools? Again, do we not read in the same Zonaras, that at the same time whereof Bellarmine speaks, there was a matchless Philosopher at Constantinople, and many skillful Mathematicians, who were his scholars? And do we not read in Cedrenus, that this Philosopher was called Leo, and that he was brought up in learning at Constantinople, though afterward he learned Rhetoric, Philosophy, Arithmetic, and the other liberal sciences, in the Isle of Antro? And doth not this argue, that Cedrenus and Zonaras do not report, that there was no learning in any place of Grecia? Thirdly, is it not well known, that about the year 680. there was kept a general Council at Constantinople, whereat there were many Bishops of Grece and among the rest the Bishop of Athens? Is it not well known that there was kept another Council at Nice an 100. years after, viz. about the year 780. at which there were mo Bishops of Greece then at the former? Is it not well known there was a 3. Council holden at Constantinople, which did exceed in mumber either of the former 2, about the yere 870? And how is it credible so many Councils consisting of many Bishops should be kept in Greece, and yet Greece utterly without learning? Welfare N. D. in comparison of Bellarmine herein, for N. D. durst not (it seemeth) say with Bellarmine: that about Pope Joan’s time there was no school in any place of Grecia. He was ashamed to run with his master to such excess of lying. He left him in this.

True. But that Athens at that time had no school in it at all, nor many years before N. D. is as confident as his master Bellarmine. And that circumstance is that which gals you most. Wherefore tell me what more you can say to it?

Nay first tell me how N. D. proves that? for I shall esteem of his position, as I find his proof to be.

His position is evident ( he saith) by Cedrenus and Zonaras in the places already cited.

He lies falsely. Cedrenus and Zonaras makes as much for Bellarmine's opinion, as for his. For they speak of the decay of learning through Grecia generally, and not in Athens particularly; yet (as you have heard) they make nothing for Bellarmine. N. D. might as well have cast off Bellarmine's witnesses, as Bellarmine's opinion for insufficient. Have you anymore exceptions?

Yea. For these tale-tellers report, that she came to Rome, and there professed learning openly, and had great doctors to her scholars. But this is a notorious untruth. For there was no learning openly professed at Rome in those days, as the stories declare.

The stories declare, that Ina one of our Saxon kings did build a school in Rome, a little before Pope Joan’s days: viz. in the year 727. and that to this end, that the kings of England, and their children, the Bishops, the priests, and the rest of the Clergy, might repair thither, to be instructed in the Catholic faith, and afterwards return home. Which school flourished in king Offa his time, viz. 795. and continued at least till Alfred's time. For we read, that Marinus the Pope, who sat in the year 883. freed it from all payments at Alfred's motion. Now is it likely that such a school was built, and maintained for such a purpose, where no learning was publicly professed? Moreover, we read of many other schools kept in the same city, in Stephen the 6. his time, which was about the year 885. For all the schools in Rome concurred in joyful manner, bringing Stephen the 6. to the palace of Lateran, saith one of your popish Chroniclers: and Stephen was sorry with all his heart he had not wherewith to gratify the schools. And is it to be thought that all these schools were maisterlesse? that they had no professors, no readers?

If there had been ever such a Joan Pope, which some had forborne to speak of, for reverence to that sea: the difference which is found among Historians, in numbering of such Popes as were called by the name of John, should have risen at that time, and by reason of that occasion. But the difference among historians about the number of John-Popes, arose not from that time, and about that occasion. It arose in Pope John the 12. his time, about the year 955. Ergo there was never such a Joan Pope. Now answer me this argument, if you can, for this is held a doughtie one.

Is it so? Well, hearken then what I answer to it. I say, first there is no reason that historians should have differed in their account of John's from her time, though some for reverence of that Sea, forbare to speak of her. For they who spake of her, were not to set any numeral note upon her head, as before I shown you out of Onuphrius. They were not to reckon one John the more for her. Neither indeed did any historian before Platina, reckon her in the number of John's, though they called her by the name of John.

Yes, Platina set a numeral note upon her head, and called her John the 7. and so did many since his time.

Many since his time have called her so, I grant, being moved thereto (as I suppose) by this, that they saw her so called in Platina. But Platina hath been corrupted by some of your generation, as before I noted. For he neither called her John the 7. nor John the 8. But secondly I say, your minor is false. For the difference which is about the number of John's, arose not from John the 12, but from this woman Joan. For since Platina his time, some called her John the seventh, some John the eighth, and so disagreed in the total sum.

Nay, herein you are out. For that their disagreement began in John the 12. his days, Lambertus, who lived in those days, witnesseth: and your Century writers do confess.

Doth Lambertus witness that? Fie that you should say so. For he hath not one word sounding that way. No more have the Century writers.

Yes but they have. For they write, that when as John the 12. was deposed by the Cardinals, and Leo the 8. placed in his room: John the 12. got the Popedom again, and kept it four months; which some historians not observing, made two Popes of one.

The Century writers do not write this. Your Fl • rimondus and Bernartius, from whence you have this stuff, are shameless fellows to report this by them. They say indeed, that there is great difference in writers about Pope John the 12: meaning by John the 12. not him, into whose room Leo the 8. was chosen, of whom you talk at random, but another John, who was son to Sergius, commonly called John the 11. But that historians began to differ in their account by reason of that difference, they say not. Yea it is plain, they impute the difference among the historians to this, that some called Joan, John the 7. some John the 8. Wherefore you must cast about for a new argument, for this will not serve your turn.

I have arguments good store: whereof, the first shall be taken from the time wherein (they say) she sat as Pope. And I will deal especially with Marianus Scotus, the first reporter of this matter. For if he be confounded, all the rest must rest confounded.

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

If Leo the 4. lived to the year 855, then Marianus Scotus lied falsely in reporting that this Joan was chosen Pope in the year 853: for by his confession she succeeded Leo the fourth. But Leo the 4. lived to the year 855. Ergo Marianus Scotus lied falsely in reporting that this Joan was chosen Pope in the year 853.

What is that to the main chance, that Marianus Scotus mistook the year of her entering into the popedom? In histories, a year or two break no square. But how prove you that Marianus reports, that this Pope Joan was chosen in the year 853?

By his own wosds. For thus he writes. Anno octingentesimo quinquagesimo tertio Leo Papa obijt Kalend. Augusti. Huic successit Joanna mulier annis duobus, mensibus quinque, diebus quatuor. In the year 853. Leo the Pope died on the Kalends of August: and Joan the woman succeeded after him for the space of two years five months, and four days.

These are not Marianus words. For he sets not down the year precisely, but in numeral figures, by the side of the text. And it is plain, by conference of years, that he meant to note out the 855 for her entrance, and not the 853. For Benedict the 3. who succeeded her, entered not (by his account) till the year 857. Now if she had entered 853, she had been Pope four years, or thereabouts. For between 853. and 857. there run four years; whereas in plain words he notes, that she was Pope but two years, five months, and four days. Secondly, it is plain by Marianus Scotus, that Sergius the 2. began his popedom in the year 844. and sat three years. It is plain. that Leo the fourth, next successor to Sergius, began his in the year 847, and sat eight years. Now put these three odd sums 4, 3, and 8, to 840, and they will make 855. So that whosoever succeeded Leo the 4, must begin in the year 855; and that was Joan the woman, in Marianus opinion.

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

No. No more then the words following, Huic successit Joanna mulier, &c. which are set just over against these figures 854. do argue that she began her popedom the next year after: or that Leo the 4. began his popedom in the year 852, because right over against that number, his entrance upon Sergius death is mentioned. Is not your next argument better?

The people of Rome, about that time, were evil affected towards the Pope, and so was the greater part of all Italy: for that Charles had subdued them, and given them to the Pope. Now if such an accident as this had fallen out, it might have given them just cause to have fallen from the Pope again: for they might have pretended that they would not be subject to a womanish and an whorish government. But we read of no such thing. Ergo.

Charles rescued Italy out of the hands of the Lombards, with the great good liking both of the Romans and the rest of Italy. But he never turned them over to live under the Popes government. All his life he kept them in obedience to himself, and by will bequeathed the whole country to his youngest son Pipin, as Baronius showeth out of the French histories. Ergo this argument is naught: let me have a new one.

The Popes about the time of this your supposed Pope Joan did take up roundly both kings and Emperors for their adulteries. Which is a plain argument, there was no Pope Joan in that Sea guilty of any such crime.

What kings and Emperors were these, whom the Popes took up so roundly for their adulteries?

Ludouicus the Emperor was one. For Gregory the fifth, turned him into a Monastery for his adultery with one Judith: that there he might (apart) do Penance for his sin.

Gregory the fifth lived almost 150. years after Pope Joan; and besides, there was no Emperor called Ludouike in his time. Perhaps Florimondus would have said Gregory the fourth, for he lived not long before Pope Joan’s time, and in his days there was one Ludouike an Emperor.

Indeed it may be so, for the numeral figure might soon be mistaken. For Gregory the fourth, a man may easily set down Gregory the fifth. And what say you to it?

I say Florimondus is a palterer. For Ludouike, who lived in Gregory the fourths time, was never noted for an adulterer, with any Judith, nor with any woman else. Judith his wife was suspected of that sin with others, and thereupon was veiled, and thrust into a Monastery by some of the Princes of the Empire. And Ludouicke himself, upon other pretences, was for a time deprived of the Empire. But Gregory the fourth had no hand either in her veiling, or in his deprivation, as you may see by Baronius. Besides, this fell out before Pope Joan’s time: and therefore doth not hinder but that there was such a Joan. Me thinks you should be drawn dry, you talk so idly.

If there had been such a Pope Joan, some historian would have written either good or bad of her. But we read nothing of her in any history.

Do we read nothing of her in any history? whence have we this of her aspiring to the Popedom, and of her lewd behavior in the time of her Popedom? have I not proved it unto you out of the histories?

Yea, but my meaning is, that we read nothing in any history of her reforming the Church: of her determining of causes and questions, usually proposed by Bishops to them that are Popes, of any intercourse or affairs, that she had with King or Emperor.

No more do we read in any historian, of any such act done by Anastasius the third, who sat as Pope two years and upward. Anastasius the third (as Platina witnesseth) did nothing worthy of remembrance. We read nothing of any great Acts done by Leo the seventh. He sat 3 years, and six months: yet he did as little as Anastasius, for anything we read; he neither reformed the Church, nor resolved any Bishop his doubts: nor intermeddled with any Princes.

Oh but that age, wherein you feign that this Joan lived, was an age wherein fell out great variety of matter, both in the East and in the West. In it many Princes and Emperors of great worth reigned. In it many men of great learning lived. And therefore if there had been any such monster then, we could not but have heard of it on all sides.

So we have, as before I proved. But what great variety of matter fell there out in that age more then ordinary?

In that age there was old holding and drawing between the Eastern and Western Churches about Images. Many Councils were kept by both sides, and many evil words passed on all hands.

Go, go, I am ashamed of you, and of Florimondus your master. All stories testify that the difference between the Eastern and the Western Churches about Images, began in the former ages: and that, though they continued some few years after the year 800, yet there was no talk of that matter for diverse years before Pope Joan’s days. Yet I am willing to hear you speak on. Wherefore tell me what store of learned men that age brought out?

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

It may be so. Yet you must know that they went for learned men in that age, who were but bare Grammarians. And therefore were they never so many, Pope Joan’s acts might pass unwritten.

Yea but I would gladly know of you, what Dukes, what Princes, what Kings, what Emperors, this Joan inaugured, and crowned: what Ambassadors she entertained, what honors she bestowed upon any persons.

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

I thought so. And therefore you do well to confess • it. I trust at length you will also confess that there was no Pope Joan.

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

Nay I say not so. But in that age the Emperors themselves had such a reverend opinion of the Roman Popes, that they would not take upon them to reign, except they gave them their consent and crowned them.

How prove you that?

By this, that Adrian the first, baptized the two sons of Charles the great, and after that annointed them kings.

This proves not your purpose: for this fell out in the year 781, as Baronius notes: and not in that age wherein Pope Joan lived. But do you think that every Pope in that age inaugured some Dukes or Princes, or Kings, or Emperors? I would gladly know of you what Duke, or Prince, or King, or Emperor was inaugured, or crowned by Pope Eugenius the 2, who sat in the year 824, or by Pope Ualentinus, who sat in the year 827, or by Pope Gregory the 4. who succeeded Valentinus: or by Pope Sergius the second, who fate in the year 844. or by Pope Leo the 4, who sat in the year 847. I am sure never a one of these crowned any Emperor. And I remember not that any one of these annointed any Duke, or King, save Leo the 4, who annointed Alfred the youngest son of Athelwulfus king of England. Which furthered him nothing to the attaining of the kingdom. For till the death of his three elder brethren, for all the Popes anointing him, he lived like a subject, he lived not like a king. Wherefore to put you in mind of the main point; though Pope Joan inaugured, or crowned no such persons as you speak of, yet you cannot conclude thereupon: Ergo, there was no Pope Joan.

But if she bestowed no honors upon any persons: if she made no Bishops: if she gave no Bishoprics: it is more then probable there was never any such.

Oh but we read, that contulit sacros ordines, promouit Episcopos, ministrauit Sacramenta, caetera{que} Romanorum Pontificum exercuit munera: she gave orders: she made Bishops: she administered the Sacraments, and she performed all other offices belonging unto the Papacie.

Where read you that? I warrant you, you had it out of Bale: of whom I wish you to see at your leisure, what Florimondus censure is.

John Bale (for ought I know) is far honester man, then Florimondus. And to tell you truth, if Florimondus rail upon him, I shall have the better opinion of him. For as Tertullian persuaded himself that whosoever knew Nero, would easily believe Christianity were good because it was disliked by Nero: so I persuade myself, that whosoever knows Florimondus, he will the rather be well persuaded of John Bale, because he is reviled by Florimondus. But yet I would have you know, I read not this in Bale only, but in Cornelius Agrippa: a man much commended by Leo the 10. and in a book of his solemnly privileged by Charles the 5.

Well sir, since these reasons prevail not with you, I will come a step or two nearer you. And first to prove your story a fabulous fiction, I argue thus. If the report of Pope Joan be not afabulous fiction, then Nicolas the first Pope of that name, who at the time of her election was a Cardinal, gave her a voice, and so consented to her election. But it is not credible that Nicolas gave her a voice, and consented to her election. Ergo.

First, I deny that Nicolas was a Cardinal at the time of Pope Joan’s election. For he was made Subdeacon by Sergius the second, and Deacon by Leo the fourth. In which order he continued till the death of Benedict the 3, who sat after Joan. Secondly, I deny we are bound to believe that he gave Pope Joan his voice, though we should grant he was a Cardinal. For it was never required, that all the Cardinals should give consent to any Popes election. But principally I deny your minor proposition, viz. that it is not credible Nicolas gave her his voice, and consented to her election. And how can you prove it?

If Nicolas had given her a voice, and consented to her election, then could he not honestly have reproved Photios Patriarke of Constantinople, for that he suffered himself of a mere layman to be made a Patriarke. Neither could he justly have reproved Michael the Emperor, for that he gave his consent to Photios ordination and election. But (no doubt) he reproved them both honestly and justly. Ergo he never gave Pope Joan his voice, he never consented to her election.

Why might not he without note of dishonesty reprove Photios and the Emperor for their dealing, though he himself had a hand in Pope Joan’s election?

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

Oh is that it? As though there were not a main difference between Nicolas his fact (to suppose he did it) and the fact of Photios and the Emperor. Photios and the Emperor did that wittingly and willingly, which Nicolas reproves in them. Nicolas chose a woman Pope unwittingly. It was with Nicolas (in all likelihood) at the election of Pope Joan, as it was with the 200 of Jerusalem, who were called by Absalom to Hebron: of whom the Scriptures witness that they went in their simplicity, knowing nothing. Now ignorance, invincible ignorance, such as this was, excuseth, though not from all fault, yet from so great fault. Wherefore you must come nearer me yet, if you mean to drive me from my opinion.

Have at you then, and that with a golden argument, such as can never be answered, and this is it. About 170 years after this devised election of Pope Joan (to wit, upon the year of Christ 1020) the Church and Patriarke of Constantinople being in some contention with Rome, Pope Leo the ninth wrote a long letter to Michael the Patriarke of Constantinople, reprehending certain abuses of that Church, and among other, that they were said to have promoted Eunukes to priesthood, and thereby also a greater inconvenience fallen out, which was, that a woman was crept to be Patriarke. Now (no doubt) Leo would never have durst to write thus, if the Patriarke might have returned the matter back upon him again, and said: This was but a slanderous report, falsely raised against the Church of Constantinople, but that a woman indeed had been promoted in the Romaine Church.

Is this your golden and unanswerable argument? Truly I am sorry for you, that you have no more skill in an argument: for you presume in this, that Leo would never object that against Constantinople, whereof Rome it self might be convinced; and make that the ground of your conclusion. Now that is a slabbie ground, as may appear by this, that it is ordinary with you Papists to object that against others, whereof yourselves stand most guilty. It is ordinary with you Papists, to call your enemies, whores first. Do not you complain with open mouths of us Ministers, for want of continency? and yet is it not well known, that your priests and monks, like fed horses, have neighed after their neighbors wives: and your Nuns have opened their feet (to use the Prophets phrase when he speaketh of such like light skirts) to everyone that passed by, and have multiplied their whoredoms?

Yea, but how could Leo have answered the Patriarke of Constantinople, if the Patriarke might have replied truly upon him, that Rome was guilty of such an oversight?

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

Agatho one of your Popes, avoucheth, that the Roman Church never swerved from the tradition of the Apostles, that she never gave ear to novelties; that the Pope his predecessors had ever boldly, strengthened their brethren, according to Christ's commandment unto Peter. For proof thereof he appeals to all the world. In like manner Nicolas another of your Popes, speaking of his fellow Popes, braves it out, that never one of them was so much as suspected to have held an error. Now if a man should have replied upon them (as any man might have replied truly) that Victor was suspected to have held, that Christ was a pure man, and not God, which is witnessed by Eusebius. That Zepherinus was suspected of Montanisme, which is testified by Tertullian. That Marcellinus sacrificed to idols, which is witnessed by Damasus, and acknowledged by Bellarmine, though denied in some sort by Baronius. That Liberius subscribed to the Arian heresy, which is reported by Damasus, by Athanasius, by Jerome, and by Sozomen. That Felix, as some say, was an Arian, or at least, as others say, communicated with the Arians. That Honorius the first was a Monothelite, and for that condemned by name in the sixth and seventh general Councils. How could Agatho and Nicolas have answered this reply, think you?

We read, that Tarasius the Patriarke of Constantinople charged your Pope Hadrian the first, with the crime of Symonie. And do you therefore think that he himself was free from symony? or rather do you not know that he himself was grievously suspected of simony?

Yes I know that though Tarasius was an holy man in his life, and approved so to be by miracles wrought after his death: yet he was very greatly suspected of simony. Wherefore I rather think, that you never read he charged Pope Hadrian with that fault.

The Epistle which Tarasius wrote to Hadrian, wherein he reproveth him, for that is extant in print, so that you yourself may read it also if you will.

I remember Baronius talks of such an Epistle. But he suspects that Balsamon, who first published it, did counterfeit it, to discredit the Roman Sea. And indeed Balsamon loved not Rome.

Gentian Heruet, who translated the epistle into Latin, was nothing suspicious of it. No more was Bignaeus, who put it into his Librarie of holy Fathers. Nor Posseuine, who mentions it in his Apparatus sacer. I see it goeth hard with you, when you are driven to plead, that the evidence I bring is forged. I thought that shift had been proper to us Protestants, for you often upbraid us with it: but now I see it is common to us with you. But why is Baronius suspicious of it?

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

Baronius saith therein untruly. For proof whereof I will use no other witness but himself, his own mouth shall condemn him. For he himself confesseth, that Tarasij epistola ad Hadrianum Pontificem de Symoniaca heresy profliganda ab Anastasio ad finem septimae Synodi positalegitur, nec non apud Theodorum Balsamonem in Appendice ad Nomacanonem Photii: that is, that Tharasius epistle unto Hadrian the Pope, treating of the rooting up of the sin of Symonie, is to be read in the end of the seventh general Council, where it was put by Anastasius: and withal in Theodorus Balsamon, in his Appendix unto Photios Nomocanon. For if Anastasius placed it at the end of the seventh general Council, then was not Balsamon the first that published it. For Anastasius lived about 300 years before Balsamon. For Anastasius lived about the year 860, and Balsamon lived about the year 1180.

You speak probably. ^h But me thinks, though men at that time had been so far bewitched and distract of their five wits, as they could not have known a man from a woman: yet God himself, who appointed and ordained the Seat of Peter, whereof he would the whole Church to be directed; should never have departed so far from his merciful providence, as to suffer the same to be polluted by a woman, which is not of capacity for holy orders.

And why (I pray you) might not God as well suffer that Church to be polluted by a woman, as by so many monstrous men, of whom your own historians write very shamefully? Why might not she sit there, as well as Sabinian, that base and miserable companion, qui formidabili morte, & culpabili vita notatus est: who is taxed by your writers, for his vile life and fearful death? Why might not she sit there as well as Stephen the 6, who (as I told you before) took up the carcass of Formosus his predecessor out of the grave, brought it into judgment before a Council of Bishops, spoiled it of his papal robes, clad it with a laymans garment, indicted it, arraigned it, condemned it, cut off three fingers of it, and cast it into the stream of Tiber: depriving all them of their orders whom he had ordained, reordaining them again? Why might not she sit there, as well as Boniface the 7, who robbed S. Peters Church, and fled for a time to Constantinople; who afterwards by symony and murthering two Popes, made himself Pope; who in mischief outstr • pt the most notorious robbers and slayers by the high ways, that ever were: which in cruelty went before bloody Sylla and Catiline, and such as sought the ruin of their country, as your own Baronius confesseth; and who at length died like a beast? Why might not she sit there, as well as Sylvester the 2, that famous conjurer, who gave himself both body and soul to the devil, that he might get the Popedom, and died thereafter? Why might not she sit there?—

Nay, stay a little. They say, it is a sin to belie the devil. Now I persuade myself that you belie Pope Sylvester: for I read, that he was reputed a notable man, both for his life and learning.

How notable he was, let Platina speak, who writes, that ambitione & diabolica dominandi cupiditate impulsus, largitione primo quidem Archiepiscopatum Rhemensem, inde Raucunatem adeptus, Pontificatum postremo maiore conatu adiuu • nte diabolo, consequutus est, hac tamen lege, vt post mortem totus illius esset, cuius fraudibus tantam dignitatem adeptus erat: that is, Sylvester the 2. being diuellishly ambitious, got first by bribery the Archbishopric of Reims, then of Rauenna, and after that by the devils help the Bishopric of Rome, yet upon this condition, that when he died he should be wholly his, by whose means he attained to such dignity. Have you not cause to believe, that this fellow was notable for life and learning? But perhaps Platina is singular in this. No. Sigebert confesseth, that Sylvester was thought to have got the Popedom * il-favoredly: and that he was suspected of negromancie; and that some said, the devil brought him to his end. The same in effect is reported by Benno Cardinalis, by Martinus Polonus, by Johannes Stella a Venetian, by Philippus Bergomensis, by Renulfus Cestrensis, by Matthaeus W • stmonasteriensis, by Fasciculus Temporum, by Charanza, and by Aeneas Sylvius: for, Non nos fugit Syl • estrum secundum diabolica fraud Romanum Pontisicatum ascendisse, saith Aeneas: we are not ignorant that Sylvester the 2. got the papacy by devilish subtlety.

Tut: all this is to no purpose: Pope Sylvester was learned in the Mathematickes, and such was the ignoran • e of that age, that thereupon they held him for a conjurer.

Indeed William • Malmesbury having related the same story in substance with the above-named writers, supposeth that some might reply so, saying, Sed haec vulgata, ficta crederet aliquis. But some man peradventure will say, this is but a mad tale, eo quod solet populus literatorum famam laedere, dicens illum loqui cum demon, quem in aliquo viderint excellentem opere: because the common people are wont to say, that scholars who are singular in anything do use a familiar: yet he concludes, that he believes it for true. For mihi vero fidem facit de istius sacrilegio inaudita mortis excogitatio, ( saith he) I am verily persuaded, Sylucster was such a villain, because of the strangeness of his death. For, Curse moriens excarnificaret ipse sui corporis horrendus Lanista, nisi noui scelcris conscius esset? For why should the butcherly fellow have torn his own flesh (as he did) but that he was guilty of some strange sin? Do not you think there is reason in this question? Doubtless your Onuphrius was afraid to answer it And therefore in his notes upon Platina, where he labors to clear Sluester of the imputation of a conjurer, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 he takes day with his reader, to clear him from so fearful a death.

Yea but Sylvester the second, is commended by Sergius the fourth, a very holy Pope, who lived within five years after him: wherefor it is not credible that he died such a shameful death.

Say you so? Doth not Baronius confess, that though Stephen the sixth, was a wicked fellow: and that as he entered into the Popedom like a thief and a murderer: so he died like a thief: yet Sergius the third, who succeeded within eight years after him, commended him: yea I • hn the ninth his next successor, who in that age was a singular honest Pope, commended him, as a man of blessed memory. Upon which later confession, he makes this observation: Hic considera Lector, quanta solerent successores Pontifices quantulūcun{que} reprehensibiles praedecessorem reuerentia persequi, vt Johannes Stephanum suum praedecessores tum sedis inuasione, tum etiam sessione, in omnibus plane execrandis facinoribus detestabilem, piaetamen recordationis Stephanum appellet. The effect of which Latin is, that it is worthy the observation, that the live • Popes spake reverently of the dead-Popes, were they never so naughty. Wherefore to go on why might not Pope Joan sit there as well as Benedict the ninth, that ugly monster, as Platina calls him, who got the room when he was 12. years old, who when he was cast out for his unworthiness, got it again by strong hand within a few days after; and for fear that he could not keep it long, sold it to another for money: who after his death appeared partly like an Ass, partly like a Bear, confessing that he carried such a shape, because he lived like a beast in his life time? Why might not she sit as well in S. Peters chair, as Boniface the eighth, who when he should upon an Ashwednesday (as the Popish manner is) have laid ashes upon an Archbishops head, and religiously told him: that he was but ashes, and should return to ashes: cast them in the Archbishops face, and eyes, maliciously telling him, that he was a Gibelline, & that he should die with the Gibellines? of whom Celestinus his predecessor (a man famous they say for miracles) prophesied: That as he entered like a Fox, so he should reign like a Lion, and die like a Dog, which fell out accordingly?

Why might not she sit there as well as Gregory the 7, commonly known by the name of Hildebrand, who set both the Church and common wealth on fire? who hired a bad fellow to tumble down great stones from the battlements of a Church upon the Emperors head, to squeaze him in pieces, whilst he was at his prayers: who cast the Sacrament into the fire: who ordinarily carried about him a conjuring book: who shreudly bebumd his predecessor Alexander: who wrested the Scriptures to cover his lewdness: who at his death confessed, that the devil set him on work, to provoke God to wrath against the world.

Why might not she sit there as well as John the 23, who was fitter for the campe, then for the Church; for profane things, then for the service of God: as knowing no faith, no religion at all: who taught again and again, and maintained it before many of good place: That there was no life after this, but that it was with men as with beasts. Who in a word lived so scandalously, that commonly he was called by them who knew him, a plain devil incarnate. Why might not she sit there as well as John the twelfth, who made Deacons in a stable, who made a boy of ten years old a Bishop, who made the Lateran a plain stews, who drunk to the devil: who when he was at dice made his prayers unto Jupiter and Uenus, and to such Idolatrous God's of the heathen. Who at length was slain even by the devil himself while he was committing adultery, as before I noted. If you cannot deny, but God hath suffered these and many as evil as any of these (except the last) to occupy S. Peters room, you may well wonder with Antoninus, at the story of Pope Joan, and say, Oh the depth of the wisdom of God, how incredible be his judgments &c. But you have no cause in this respect to deny it, you have no cause to cast it off as a fable. But give me leave to ask you a question. How should this tale of Pope Joan arise, if there was not such a Pope? was there ever such a smoke and no fire? such a report and no probability?

No indeed. Great lies arise always out of some truth. And so did this. For John the twelfth, (to confess a truth) was a wenching fellow: and among other wenches which he kept, there was one called Joan, who was all in all with him, and ruled the roast. Now the people perceiving what hand she had over him, termed her Pope, and despised him. Whereupon the Churches enemies took occasion to slander the Church, as though the Church had (indeed) had a woman Pope.

This is one of Florimondus reasons, is it not?

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

Content: provided that you tell me, how Onuphrius proves that John the 12. had such a maisterfull whore called Joan?

Onuphrius proves that out of Luitprandus Ticinēsis, a writer of that age. For he witnesseth (as Onuphrius saith, and Florimondus believes) that John the twelfth had 3. famous whores, of whom the fairest, and therefore the best beloved, was called Joan.

Luitprandus, in the place cited by Onuphrius, witnesseth, that John the 12. kept one famous whore whom he called Raynera, whom he made governor of many cities, and on whom be bestowed many golden crosses, and chalices belonging to S. Peter. In like manner he witnesseth, that he kept another called Stephana, and that he lay with married wives, with widows, with maids, who came to visit the Apostolical Churches. And withal he witnesseth, that he kept a third called Anna (who was a widow) and her niece: making the palace of Lateran no better then a baudie house. But he nowhere names any Joan, on whom that worthy head of your Church, John the 12. doted, Onuphrius (I suppose) mistook Joanna, for Anna; and Florimondus justified the proverb, A fool believeth everything. Have you not another answer to second this?

Yes. I have two or three besides this?

That's well. And what is the first of them I pray you?

This John the ninth, was made Bishop of Bonony, and afterwards Archbishop of Rauenna, and at last Pope of Rome, by the means of one Theodora, a famous whore, who swayed all matters at Rome in those days. Now the people perceiving that this Theodora could turn this John which way she would, and lead him whither she list, they held him worthier the name of a woman then of a man, and therefore called him Joan, and not John. Whereupon arose the report of a Joan Pope.

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

Johannes Auentinus, who by reason he was a German borne, knew best (no doubt) the original of this fable, as Florimondus showeth.

Then Florimondus believes this too.

He thinks it very probable.

But so did not his countryman Genebrard. For, Auentinus lib. 4. Annalium fabellam esse asserit, à Theodora nobili scorto ortam, saith Genebrard: Ego vero e recentioribus adulatoribus in Romanae sedis odium. &c. That is, Auentinus holdeth that this tale arose by reason of a noble whore called Theodora. But I think, some latter clawbacks (of the Emperors) devised it to discredit the papal seat. Thus Genebrard. And is not Genebrards no, as good as Florimondus yea? especially since Genebrard spent upon his Chronicles ten whole years: whereas Florimondus by reason of his Clients, can spare no time for such studies?

Genebrard was a worthy man, I know. But I respect no man's person, wherefore give me a reason why you dislike this conceit of Auentinus, approved by Florimondus.

I will. Yet first I would have you know, that though I grant, that John, who was first B. of Bonony, then of Rauenna, and lastly of Rome, came to those Bishoprics by the means of Theodora a famous whore: in respect whereof, your Cardinal historiographer makes question, whether he was a Pope or no; and terms him sometimes Pseudopontifex & Antipapa, a false Pope, and Antipope: sometimes intrusor & detentor iniustus Apostolicae sedis: an intruder and an usurper of the Apostolical chair: yet I deny that this was John the ninth, for he was John the tenth. John the ninth came by good means to the Papacie, as your Cardinal saith. He carried himself honestly in it, and died naturally: but so did not this. This confirmed a child under five years old in the Archbishopric of Reims: at which fact Baronius stands agast. Then this, turpior nullus, cuius sicut ingressus in Cathedram Petri infamissimus, ita & exitus nefandissimus. There was never a filthier fellow then this. This entered with infamy, and died fearfully. This was stifled with a pillow by the procurement of one as famous for whoredom, as Theodora who preferred him.

This of whom Florimondus speaks, was stifled with a pillow by Theodoraes own daughter. But it seems you wrong her in her good name. For she caused him to be stifled, because she could not brook his filthy kind of life with her mother, as Florimondus notes.

Florimondus will never be good. The daughter disliked not her mothers and the Popes course of life at all. She her self played the whore with Sergius one of your Popes, and had by him John the 11. She married her husbands brother, and lived with him in incest. The only cause why she procured him to be stifled, was her envy to one Peter the Popes brother, as Baronius proveth out of Luitprandus.

But in good earnest, was not this John, John the ninth? Florimondus again and again calls him John the ninth. And me thinks he should not mistake him so often.

In earnest this was not John the 9. Florimondus was deceived.

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

Yes, that is true. But Benedict the 4. succeeded not this John. John the 11. as Luitprandus writes: or rather Leo the 6, as others write, succeeded this John.

Florimondus writes, that Benedict the 4. succeeded this John: and observes withal a knacke of knavery in those who report this story, in that they fathered this tale upon a John, whom a Benedict succeeded.

Observe you then a knacke of foalerie, or knavery, or rather foolish knavery in Florimondus. For I tell you once again, that Benedict the 4. succeeded not this John: all histories are against it. But suppose he was John the 9. If his loose carriage of himself with Theodora, gave occasion of the report of a woman Pope, why was it not recorded as happening in his time, but above forty years before his time? John the 9. was made Pope in the year 901: yet this story is recorded as happening about the year 854.

That came to pass by the subtlety of the reporters. For about the year 800. the Empresse who in a manner ruled all the world, was called Theodora. Now these trifling tale-tellers hearing of a Pope Joan in Theodoraes time, chopped it into the time of Theodora the Empresse, who lived about thirty years before the harlot Theodora.

This would rather argue simplicity then subtlety in the reporters. For, cui bono, whether it happened in the one, or in the other Theodoraes time? But it carries no color of truth with it. For Theodora the Empresse never carried any sway in Rome at all. At Constantinople, for a while in the time of her sons minority, she could do something: but in Pope Joan’s time she was turned out of office at Constantinople. She was deposed from her regencie, and thrust into a Monastery, where she was kept till her death. What is one of your other answers.

My third answer to your main question is, that perhaps this tale arose from John the 8. For John the 8. dealt not like a man in the case of Photios Patriarke of Constant inople, but she • pishly and like a woman. For John the 8, received Photios into communion, who was excommunicated by his predecessors. John the 8. suffered himself to be overcome by half a man. Whereupon in reproach he was called, non Papa, sed Papissa. And upon that reproachful speech, came this tale of a woman Pope.

Who devised us this answer, I pray you?

This is Baronius answer.

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

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

And with what honesty can he say both? N. D. who holds of this later opinion, professeth, that it seemeth most certain, that in Pope Leo his time, viz. 1020, there was not so much as any rumour or mention of any woman Pope that ever had been in the Roman Church. So doth Baronius himself: for verily ( saith he) if there had been but some flying tale of any such accident at Rome in former days, Pope Leo should first have cleared it, before he had charged the Church of Constantinople with the like. Was there not so much as a flying report of a woman Pope before Leo the 9 his time, in Baronius opinion? How then did John the 8. occasion such a report, who lived an 140 years before Leo? But let Baronius go with this scape. What reason have you to think that the rumour of Constantinople might occasion this tale against Rome?

Good reason. For every man knows that Constantinople was called New Rome, and Rome simply. Now a man might easily be deceived, in supposing that to be done in Rome in Italy, which was reported to be done in Rome, but in Rome in Grecia.

That Constantinople was called New Rome, I easily yield unto you. But that it was at any time called simply Rome, that your Florimondus is not able to make good. That's his own fancy; and in delivering it he bewrays his own folly. Yet to suppose it true: why did not the relators of it, set it down as happening in Leo his time, but 240 years before: if so be it was occasioned by the report that went of Constantinople in Leo his days? If it had thence begun, it should have been registered as then happening.

Well: suppose it were true: what gain you by it? or what is the Church prejudiced by her? If Pope Joan had been, she had not prejudiced the Church, saith N. D.

But she had. For if she was Pope, then it will follow thereon necessarily, that the Church (according to your learning) once hopt headless. For the Church (in your learning) is defined to be a company of Christian men professing one faith under one head, to wit, the Pope. But she, how ever she carried the name of Pope, was no Pope. For a woman is not capable of holy orders. A woman cannot play the Pope. Ergo all the time of Pope Joan, the Church hopt headless.

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

What is that you say? Doth the Church hop headless, when one Pope dieth, till another be chosen? Now alas what a pitiful case is the Church in then? Since Christ's time there have been above 240 Popes. And therefore by your saying, the Church hath been headless above 240 times. Yea, and sometimes between the death of one Pope, and the choosing of another, there have passed many days, many months, some years. As for example, after Cletus, the Bishopric of Rome was void 20. days: after Clemens, 22. After Alexander the first, 25. After Pelagius the first, 3, months and odd days. After Pelagius the second, 6. months & odd days. After John the third, 10. months and odd • days. After Sabinian, 11. months and odd days. After Honorius the first, one year and more. After Clemens the fourth, two years and more. After Marcellinus, 7. years and more, After Nicolas the 1.( as some say) 8. years and more. And after F • lix, sometimes the Duke of Savoy, S. Peters chair stood empty 10. years, saith Bodin. Wherupon will follow, that the Church hath often and long together been headless. But that is not so great a matter you say: Is it not? Whence I pray you, should the Church have her wit, when she is bereaved of her head? The saying is, Great head, little wit. But without question: no head, no wit. When the Church is headless, she is witless, and by consequent helpless. And therefore, I take it, you have good cause to beware that you grant nothing whereon it may be concluded: That your Church was once headless.

But did not Saint Austin hold opinion, upon supposition of a like case, that the Church of Christ, should not be prejudicated? Did not he, having recited up the Popes of Rome from Christ to his days, make this demand: what if any Judas or traitor had entered among these, or been chosen by error of men? and answereth presently: Nihil praeiudicaret Ecclesiae, & innocentibus Christianis.

Yes. But considering the body of your doctrine, you may not answer so, nor think so. For you hold that your Pope is head of the Church, and that it is necessary unto salvation to acknowledge him the head: but so did not S. Austin. You hold that in a true Church one Bishop must lawfully succeed another, or all is dashed: but so did not Saint Austin. For he puts the case, that some traitor subrepsisset, that is, had come in unorderly into the Bishop of Rome's Seat: and yet resolves, that that was not prejudicial to God's Church. Conforme yourselves in these two points, of the Popes headship, and succession, to Saint Austin's judgment: and then you may better say in this case of Pope Joan, that which Augustine said in the case proposed: That she had not prejudicated the Church of Christ.

We make more reckoning of Saint Austin then you do. But I will not stand wrangling upon his meaning now. Because whatsoever inconvenience can be imagined in this case, is more against you, then us. For your Church admitteth for lawful and supreme head thereof either man or woman, which our Church doth not.

Our Church admitteth neither man nor woman for lawful and supreme head of the Catholic Church, as yours doth. Our Church teacheth that Christ only is the head thereof. Our Church admitteth neither man nor woman for lawful and supreme head of a particular Church. For our Church acknowledgeth the king supreme governor only, not supreme head: and so she styled Queen Elizabeth in her time, Though if we give our Princes more, yet the inconveniences against us, are not like the inconveniences against you; because the next in blood is to succeed with us; the greatest Symonist, who can make his faction strongest, is to succeed with you.

What other inconvenience follows upon this accident, to suppose it true?

If it be true there was such a Pope, your Church must be discarded as no true Church. For thus I argue: That is no true Church, which cannot give in plain authentical writing, the lawful, orderly, entire, without any breach, and sound notorious succession of Bishops. But your Church, if Joan was Pope, cannot give in plain authentical writing, the lawful orderly, entire, without any breach, and sound notorious succession of Bishops. For by reason of her Benedict the third, could not orderly succeed Leo the fourth. She put in a caveat, or rather, was of her self a bar to his successiō. By her a breach was made in the rank of your Popes. She, no fool, but a whore, marred your play.

No, no. For all that you can rightly gather upon her Popedom is, That the Popes seat stood empty of a lawful Pastor for the space of two years, and a few odd months. Now so it did often by reason of the differences among the Electors, as you yourself shown. And yet no man durst say, nor could truly say, that succession failed, as Baronius notes.

As Baronius notes? If Baronius may be judge, there is nothing that can mar your succession, neither vacancy, nor entrance in by the window. Whether the chair be empty, or full, by irrepsion, or by usurpation, it is all one to Baronius. Baronius will not give over his plea of succession. For though he (not without grief) confesseth, that many ugly monsters have sat in S. Peters chair: though he confesseth that many Apostates, rather then Apostolical persons, have occupied that room: though he confesseth, that there have been many Popes, which came irregularly to the Papacy, and served for no other purpose then ciphers in Arithmetic, to make up the number; yet he holdeth their succession sound. Though Baronius writes, that Boniface the 6. who got possession of S. Peters chair, and kept it 15. days, was a wicked fellow, and not worthy to be reckoned among Popes, in as much as he was condemned by a Council held at Rome. Though he write, that Stephen the 7, such another as Boniface the 6, or rather worse, played at thrust out rotten with Boniface the 6, and kept the Papacy 5. years. Though he write, that Pope Christopher shuffled Leo the 5. out, and by violence installed himself, and kept it 7. months: and that Sergius at the 7. months end shuffled Christopher out, shearing him a Monk, and keeping it to himself, as some say seven years, as Baronius himself saith, three years: yet all this shuffling in Baronius opinion, doth nothing stain succession. Yea, though he cannot deny that Boniface the seventh, who sat as Pope one year and one month, was a wicked varlet, a plain tyrant, a savage beast, an usurper, one that had no good property of a Pope. Though he cannot deny but that Leo the eight, who was a schismatic, and an intruder, and an Antipope, ^b in his opinion, kept the place almost two years. Though he cannot deny but that John the twelfth who was but like a Pope in a play, kept it nine years: and John the 11, the bastardly brat of Sergius above named, who came to it by evil means and managed it accordingly, kept it 6. years: and John the 10. as false a lad as any of his fellows, who entered by fraud, and ruled with violence, kept it 15. years: yet this lessens nothing the credit of his succession. I warrant you, Baronius was of Genebrards opinion, who though he granted that fifty Popes together came in unlawfully, and governed as madly, would not yet let his hold of succession go.

Is there any further inconvenience, which may light upon us, if this story be true?

Yea. For if it be granted there was such a Pope, the Popish Priests among you may well doubt of the lawfulness of their missiō: & you lay papists of the sufficiency of the absolutions, which they give you upon your Eare-confessions, and of the truth of the Real presence, and Transubstantiation. For unless the Popish Priests be priested by a lawful Bishop, their Priesthood is not worth a rush: unless you lay Papists be absolved by a lawful Priest, your absolution is naught worth: & unless the words of consecration be uttered by a lawful Priest, intent upon his business, there follows no substantial change in the creatures of bread and wine. Now how can your Priests be assured that they were Priested by lawful Bishops: and how can you lay Papists be assured that you are absolved by lawful Priests: or that your Masses are said by lawful Priests: seeing we read (as before I shown) that Pope Joan gave Orders, Pope 〈…〉 Deacons, and Priests, and Bish •• 〈◊〉 Abbo •• . For it may be well enough that the Priests 〈…〉 present age are 〈◊〉 from those who were 〈…〉 by her: especially seeing we nowhere read, that they 〈◊〉 degraded by succeeding Popes, who had their ordin ••• from her. Her successors dealt not with her shavelings, as Pope John the 12. did with Leo the 8. his shavelings. John the 12. degraded them all, and compelled every of them to give him up a paper, wherein it was thus written: Episcopus meus (meaning Leo the 8.) nihil sibi habuit, •• hill mihi dedit had naught for himself, and gave me naught: but so did not Benedict the 3. with hers. Unless you say, that communis error facitius, as Lawyers said in the case of Barbarius Philippus I know not what you can reply with probability to this and yet that will not serve your turn; for though it may be so in matters of the common-wealth, in matters of the Church it cannot be so. For an error in the beginning, in matters touching the Ch ••• h, proves often an heresy in conclusion. In matters of the Church, prescription adds no credit to actions of evil beginning.