1 confirmed a child under five years old in the archbishoprick of Rheims : At which fact, Baronius stands aghast. 2 Then this, Turpior nullus, cujus sicut ingressus in cathedram Petri infamissimus, ita et exitus nefandissimus. There was never a filthier fellow than 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. 3 Pap. This, of whom Florimondus speaks, was stifled with a pillow by Theodora's 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. 4 Prot. Florimondus will never be good. The daughter disliked not her mother's and the Pope's course of life at all. She herself played the whore with Sergius, one of your Popes, and had by him John the Eleventh. She married her husband's brother, and lived with him in incest. The only cause, why she procured him to be stifled, was her envy to one Peter, the Pope's brother, as Baronius proveth out of Luitprandus. 7 Pap. But in good earnest, Was not this John, John the Ninth ? Florimondus, again and again, calls him John the Ninth. And, methinks, he should not mistake him so often. Prot. In earnest, this was not John the Ninth. deceived. Florimondus was Pap. Why, but Benedict the Fourth succeeded John the Ninth, Did he not? 9 Prot. Yes, that is true. But Benedict the Fourth succeeded not this John, John the Eleventh, as Luitprandus writes; or rather Leo the Sixth, as others write, succeeded this John. 10 Pap. Florimondus "writes, that Benedict the Fourth succeeded this John; and observes withal a knack of knavery in those, who report this story, in that they fathered this tale upon a John, whom a Benedict succeeded. Prot. Observe you then a knack of foolery, or knavery, or rather foolish knavery in Florimondus; for I tell you, once again, that Benedict the Fourth succeeded not this John; 12 all histories are against it. But suppose he was John the Ninth, 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 Ninth was made Pope in the year 901, yet this story is recorded as happening about the year 854. Pap. 13 That came to pass by the subtlety of the reporters; for, about the year 800, the Empress, who, in a manner, ruled all the world, was called Theodora. Now these trifling tale-tellers, hearing of 1 Ista nova, turpia, detestanda, solo auditu horrenda atque pudenda. ann. tom. x. ad ann. 925. num. 9. 2 Ibid. num. 11. 3 Idem ad an 928. num. 2. 4 Cap. 29. num. 3. 5 Luitprand lib. ii. cap. 13. agnoscente Baron. Aunal, tom. x ad an. 908. num. 5. 7 6 Baron. ad an. 933. num. 11. Ad an. 928. 8 Cap. 29, pag. 235, 236, cap. 30, pag. 240, 241. 9 Lib. iii. cap. 12. 10 Leo Ostiens. lib. i. cap. 57. in fine Baron. Annal. tom. x. ad an. 928, pag. 702. 11 Cap. xxx. pag. 242. 12 Baron. Annal, tom. x. ad an. 901. num. 1. 13 Flor. cap. xxx. num. 1. a Pope Joan in Theodora's time, chopped it into the time of Thedora the Empress, who lived about thirty years before the harlot Theodora. Prot. This would rather argue simplicity than subtlety in the reporters; for, cui bono, whether it happened in the one, or in the other Theodora's time; but it carries no colour of truth with it, for Theodora, the Empress, never carried any sway in Rome at all. At Constantinople, for a while, in the time of her son's minority, she could do something; but, in Pope Joan's time, she was turned out of office at Constantinople; she was deposed from her regency, and thrust into a monastery, where she was kept till her death. What is one of your 1 other answers? Pap. My third answer to your main question is, that, perhaps, this tale arose from John the Eighth; for John the Eighth dealt not like a man in the case of Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, but sheepishly, and like a woman? for John the Eighth received Photius into communion, who was excommunicated by his predecessors. John the Eighth 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. Prot. Who devised us this answer, I pray you? 2 Pap. This is Baronius's answer. Prot. Baronius's answer! Is that possible? Is not Baronius one of them who holds, that the rumour of the church of Constantinople's oversight, in suffering a woman to creep in to be a patriarch, occasioned this tale against Rome? Pap. Yes, marry is he; for having set down Pope Leo's words touching that rumour: Quæ ita erant fama vulgata de ecclesia Constantinopolitana, conversa in Romanam ecclesiam a schismaticis eam odio prosequentibus, & calumniis proscindentibus, quis non intelligat?' saith Baronius, that is, Who seeth not, that what was reported of Constantinople, the same was turned, by schismaticks, as spoken against Rome? Prot. And with what honesty can he say both? N. D. who holds this latter opinion, professeth, that it seemeth most certain, that, in Pope Leo's 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, 5 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 Ninth's time, in Baronius's opinion? How then did John the Eighth occasion such a report, who lived an 140 years before Leo? But let Baronius go with this escape. What reason have you to think, that the rumour of Constantinople might occasion this tale against Rome? 1 Baron. Annal. tom. x. ad an. 855. num. 51. 3 Aunal. tom. x. ad an. 853. num. 58. 2 Annal. tom. x. ad an. 879. num. 5. 4 Cap. v. num. 29. page 399. 5 Certe si vel levissimus rumusculus per calumniam de his sparsus esset, utique is ab eo fuisset antea diluendus, quam ut fama perlatum facinus ejusdem generis objecisset. Annal. tom. x. ad an. 853, num. 66. Pap. Good reason; for every man knows that Constantinople was called New Rome, and Rome simply. Now a man might casily be deceived, in supposing that to be done in Rome, in Italy, which was reported to be done in Rome, but in Rome, in Græcia. Prot. That Constantinople was called New Rome, 2 I casily yield unto you; but that it was, at any time, called simply Rome, that your Florimondus is not able to make good; that is his own fancy, and, in delivering it, he bewrays his own folly: Constantinopolis nunquam absolutè dicebatur Roma, sed cum addito, ut est hodie, Nova Roma? Constantinople was never simply called Rome, but with an addition, as we call at this day, New Rome, saith Gretser. Yet, to suppose it true, why did not the relators of it set it down as happenining in Leo's time, but 240 years before, if so be it was occasioned by the report that went of Constantinople in Leo's days? If it had thence begun, it should have been registered as then happening. Pap. 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. 4 5 Prot. But she had; for, if she was pope, then it will follow thereon necessarily, that the church, according to your learning, once hopped 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, however 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 hopped headless. Pap. Indeed, the only inconveniency 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. 6 Prot. 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 two hundred and forty popes; and therefore, by your saying, the church hath been headless above two hundred and forty times. Yea, and sometimes, between the death of one pope, and the chusing of another, there have passed many days, many months, some years. As for example: after Cletus, the bishoprick of Rome was void twenty days; after Clemens, twenty-two; after Alexander the First, 10 twentyfive; " after Pelagius the First, three months and odd days; 12 after Pelagius the Second, six months and odd days; after John the Third, ten months and odd days; after Sabinian, eleven months and odd days; 15 after Honorius the First, one year and more; after Clemens 1 Florim. Cap. xxv. Num. 3. 13 16 2 Constantinop. novam Romam jam inde a Constan tini tempore Græci vocabant. Papyr. Masson. lib. i. de Urbis Episc. in Simplicio. tom. ii. Defen 3 Part. II. of three Conversions, cap. v. page 389. cap. 2. 12 Idem in Pelagio II. 15 Idem in Honorio I. 8 Anastasius Or 35. Idem iu Alex. L 13 Idem in Joh. III. 16 Pontacus Chronogr 3 1 2 the Fourth, two years and more; after Marcellinus, seven years and more; after Nicholas the First, as some say, eight years and more; and after Felix, sometimes the Duke of Savoy, St. Peter's chair stood empty ten years, saith Bodin. Whereupon 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 consequence, 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. Pap. 5 But did not St. Austin hold opinion, upon supposition of a like case, that the church of Christ should not be prejudiced? Did not he, having recited up the popes of Rome from Christ to his days, make this demand, What, if any Judas, or traytor, had entered among these, or been chosen by error of men? And answereth presently, Nihil præjudicaret ecclesiæ, & innocentibus Christianis.' Prot. Yes; but, considering the body of your doctrince, 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 St. Austin. You hold, that, in a true church, one bishop must lawfully succeed another, or all is dashed; but so did not St. Austin: for he puts the case, that some traytor 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. Conform yourselves in these two points, of the pope's headship and succession, to St. Austin's judgment; and then you may better say, in this case of Pope Joan, that which Austin said in the case proposed, that she had not prejudiced the church of Christ. 6 Pap. We make more reckoning of St. Austin than 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 than us for your church admitteth for lawful and supreme head thereof, either man or woman, which our church doth not. Prot. Our church admitteth neither man nor woman for lawful and supreme head of the catholick 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 acknowledge th the king supreme governor only, not supreme head; and so she stiled Queen Elisabeth in her time. Though, if we give our princes more, yet the inconveniencies against us are not like the inconveniencies against you, because the next in blood is to succeed with us; the greatest simonist, who can make his faction strongest, is to succeed with you. 1 Anastas. Lib. citat. in Marcellino, & Polonus in Codice Manuscripto, & Pontacus Chronogr. Lib. ii. num. 718. 2 Teste Platina in Vit. Nichol. I. 4 N. D. Part ii. cap. 5. num. 19. teras cujusdam Donatista. Supremacy, 1 Elis. 6 N. D. Loco supra citato. 3 De Repub. Lib. vi. 5 Austin. Epist. 165, ad Li7 The Oath of Pap. What other inconvenience follows upon this accident, to supp se it true? Prot. If it be true there was such a pope, your church must be discarded as no true church; for thus I argue, 'That it is no true church, which cannot give, in plain authentical writing, the lawful, orderly, intire, 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, intire, 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 herself, a bar to his succession; by her a breach was made in the rank of your popes; she, no fool, but a whore, marred your play. Pap. No, no; for all that you can rightly gather upon her popedom is, That the Pope's 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 shewed. And yet no man durst say, nor could truly say, that succession failed, as 2 Baronius writes. 6 Prot. 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 irreption, 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 St. Peter's chair; though he confesseth, that many apostates, rather than 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 than cyphers in arithmetick, to make up the number; yet he holdeth their succession sound. Though Baronius writes, that Boniface the Sixth, who got possession of St. Peter's chair, and kept it fifteen days, was a wicked fellow, and not worthy to be reckoned among popes, inasmuch as he was condemned by a council held at Rome. Though he writes, that Stephen the Seventh, such another as Boniface the Sixth, or rather worse, played at thrust-out-rotten with Boniface the Sixth, and kept the papacy five years; though he writes, that Pope Christopher shuffled Leo the Fifth out, and by violence installed himself, and kept it seven months; and that Sergius, at the seven months end, shuffled Christopher out, shearing him a monk, and keeping it to himself, as some say, seven years; as "Baronius himself saith, three 8 1 Bristow, Motive 22. 2 Nihil prætereà ex ea ter miseri novatores lucri capiunt, nisi at dici possit duobus illis annis & mensibus sedem Pontificiam legitimo vacuam fuisse pastore quod & aliàs accidit, ut majori temporis spacio sedes Pontificia, dilata per discordias eligentium, electione vacarit: nec tamen successionem desisse, quis unquam ausus est dicere, quod nec dici potuit. Sed tantum esse dilatam, nullo vero modo sublatam. Baron. Annal. tom. x. ad ann. 853. num. 63. 3 Quot proh pudor! proh dolor! in eandem sedem visu horrenda intrusa sunt monstra, &c. tom. x. ad ann. 900, num. 3. 4 Non apostolici, sed apostatici, tom. x. ad ann. 908, num. 4. 5 Qui non sunt nisi ad consignanda tantum tempora in Catalogo Rom. Pontificum scripti, tom. x. ann. 912, num. 8. 6 Homo nefarius, jam antea bis gradu depositus, &c. non numerandus inter Pontifices, utpote qui damnatus fuit in Rom. Synod. tom. x. ad ann. 897. num. 1. 7 Tom. x. ad ann, 897, num. 1. 8 Apostolica sedis invasor, & fur & latro -indignus nomine Rom. Pontif. ibid. ann. 900. num. 6. 10 Ad ann. 910, num. 1. 9 Tom. x. ad ann. 908, num. 1, ibid. |