Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	account_n	acknowledge_v	13	3	6.2787	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19243	Pope Ioane A dialogue betvveene a protestant and a papist. Manifestly prouing, that a woman called Ioane was Pope of Rome: against the surmises and obiections made to the contrarie, by Robert Bellarmine and Cæsar Baronius Cardinals: Florimondus Ræmondus, N.D. and other popish writers, impudently denying the same. By Alexander Cooke.	Cooke, Alexander, 1564-1532.	1610 (1610)	STC 5659; ESTC S108622	128,580	142

Marianus Scotus nor Sigebert nor Go●efridus Viterbiensis nor Polonus nor Platina nor Palmerius nor Trithemius nor Fasciculus Temporum nor Krantius nor Alfonsus è Carthagena nor Textor call her either Iohn the 7 or Iohn the 8 but simply Iohn or Ioane For it seems they were 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 Iohns PAP Yes by your leaue Platina stiles her Iohn the eight and the next 9. For which he is reproued by Onuphrius and that vpon the reason which you mentioned For these are Onuphrius words Iohannes hic omnino 8. non 9. est vt à Platina describitur Nam etsi Iohannes foemina Papa quam profitetur fuisset non tamen numeri notam habere debuisset sacri ordinis non capax that is This Iohn questionlesse is the eighth and not the ninth as Platina accounts him for though Iohn the woman whom he talkes of had bene Pope yet seeing she was not capable of Priesthood she should not go for one in the number of Iohns PROT. Platina stiles her not Iohn the eighth Onuphrius or some bodie for him hath abused both Platina and you For proofe whereof I appeale to Platina printed in the yeare 1481. which was the yeare wherin Platina died and to the next edition Anno 1485. For speaking of Iohn the woman in those ancient editions he sets no numerall note vpon her head but begins his storie thus Iohannes Anglicus ex Maguntiaco oriundus c. Iohn English borne at Mentz Neither stiles he the next 9. but 8. For coming to that Popes life Iohannes 8. patria Romanus c. saith he Iohn the eighth by his countrey a Romane c. For further proofe of which later point I appeale to the later editions whereunto Onuphrius annotations are annexed For though we reade thus in them Iohannes nonus patria Romanus c. Iohn the ninth by his countrey a Romane c. yet that that reading is false and the ancient reading true it appeares by that which is written of the next Popes life to wit Martin the second euen in those later editions For Platina shewing how Martin liued in the time of Charles the third addes presently quem ab Iohanne 8. coronam accepisse scripsimus that is who was crowned by Iohn the eighth as we haue written Now Charles the third was crowned by Iohn next before Martin according to Platina Wherefore the next before Martin was Iohn the 8. in Platina his account and not Iohn the ninth as Onuphrius would make vs beleeue Which ouersight or fraud of Onuphrius was not so great but that by this meanes he is forced to alter Platina his numerall note set to all the Iohns that follow to call him Iohn the tenth whom Platina cals Iohn the ninth to call him the eleuenth whom Platina cals the tenth to call him the thirteenth whom Platina cals the twelfth and so vnto the last Baldesar Cossa who was in number of Iohns according to the ancient editions the 23 and not the 24 as he is numbred in the editions with Onuphrius notes But say on what other disagreement haue you obserued among the reporters of this storie PAP Some say she began her Papacie in the yeare 853 some in the yeare 854 some in the yeare 857 some in 858 some in 904 some in 653 some in 686. PROT. Why name you not the Authors that write thus For to this day I neuer read or heard of any who placed her either about the yeare 653. or 686. or 904. All the aboue-named Historiographers mention her within the compasse of fiue yeares Till you bring forth your proofe there is great reason to suspect your truth PAP Peraduenture you will suspect my truth if I tell you that some say she succeeded Leo the fourth some Leo the fifth ●me Benedict the third some Martin the first some Iohn the fifth PROT. I shall indeed For I reade 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. PAP Yea but you haue little reason to beleeue Bellarmine therein For Polonus writes that she succeeded Leo the 5. And so doth Sigebert too PROT. That Leo whom Sigebert placeth next before Ioane the woman is numbred 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 haue no colour of exception from him No more haue 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 yeare 698 whom others recken not at all which is the cause of the difference betweene him and others in the account of Leoes that follow But in the persons all agree What is the next disagreement PAP Some say she sate Pope one yeare one moneth and 4 dayes Some two yeares two moneths and 4 dayes Some two yeares and a halfe Some but two yeares full Very many say she sate one yeare fiue moneths and three dayes And they are no small number who say she sate but barely foure moneths PROT. If this be true Bellarmine was farre wide 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 sate as Pope two yeares and fiue moneths He knew none no more then 1 that gaue her so litle time as foure moneths He knew no such difference herein as you talke of Yet among the later writers I confesse there is some difference of some few moneths but Marianus and Polonus which are two of the principall agree vpon the point They write vniformly that she sate two yeares fiue moneths and foure daies And Platina is not farre short of that summe For by his reckoning she sate two yeares one moneth and foure daies But suppose the differences in these circumstances were great and many what is that to discredit the substance of the storie We find great difference among them who haue written of Pope Lucius For some say he was a Romane some a Tuskan some say he was the sonne of Lucinus some of Porphirie some say he was chosen Pope in the yeare 253 some in the yeare 254 some in the yeare 255 some in the yeare 259 some in the yeare 275. Some say he sate Pope 3 yeares 3 moneths and 3 dayes some 3 yeares and 5 moneths some 3 yeares 7 moneths and six daies some

infinite who neither speake pro nor con Againe tell me whether Denis Bishop of Athens was not afterward B. of Paris though Ado B. of Triers in Germanie and Suidas a Greeke writer make no mention of that his second Bishopricke Your Lipomanus resolues vpon Metaphrastes and one Michael Syngelus his word that Denis was B. of Paris though Ado and Suidas speake not of it Their passing it ouer in silence doth not preiudice Metaphrastes and Syngelus report who say he was B. of Paris in Lipomanus opinion And why then though these and many mo say nothing of Pope Ioane might there not be such a Pope sith as many and as learned as they do reckon her among the Popes Salmeron one of your prime Iesuites notes that when one Historian reports a matter and another passeth by it the latters silence doth not preiudice the truth of the other historians relation Ealex apud historiographos obseruatur saith he vt quando vnus ex duobus historicis aliquid affirmat quod alius supprimit non deroget affirmanti qui tacet PAP Yea but there are in the Popes librarie six or seuen tables of Popes wherein there is no mention of her PROT. And what of that Your Popes Librarie is compared b Baronius to a draw net which gathers together good and bad Your Popes Librarie hath in it bookes of all sorts approued disproued profitable vnprofitable It hath counterfet and forbidden bookes as well as bookes of better reckning They are simple people as we reade in Baronius who beleeue reports the rather for that they are to be found in bookes which are in the Popes Librarie Yet suppose these seuen tables be of best note will you yeeld thus much to me that he who is numbred in these seuen tables or at least in as many as authenticall as these as a Pope was a Pope PAP No not I. For I know that Leo the 8. is numbred as a Pope in many tables and in some of those seuen if not in them all And yet I am of Baronius mind that Leo the eight was an intruder and an vsurper and that he was not worthy to be called a Pope But why asked you of me this question PROT. If this be no good argument Leo the eight is numbred among thee Popes in seuen tables that are in the Popes Librarie or in seuen as authenticall as these in the Popes Library ergo Leo the 8. was a Pope What reason haue you to thinke yours good which is this in effect Ioane the woman Pope is not numbred among the Popes in seuen tables which are in the Popes Librarie Ergo there was no such Ioane a woman Pope If seuen tables speaking out for a Pope do not conuince the being of such a Pope why should their silence conuince the not being of a Pope Might they not as well leaue out one who had bene Pope as put in one who neuer was Pope PAP But why should they haue left her out PROT. Partly for her sexes sake because she was a woman and partly in regard of the filthinesse of her fact For so your stories note And this need not seeme strange to you if you would but obserue that other Popes vpon other occasions haue bene passed by by diuers 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 sate in the Popedome one yeare foure moneths and two daies as we reade in Platina Yet by Genebrards confession Marcellinus omits to speake of him in his Chronicle because he was suspected of heresie And for the same cause or some such like cause S. Austin and Optatus mention him not among the Popes in their memoriall of Popes Nor yet Bristow in his table of Popes which is printed with his wise demaunds In like manner that one Cyriacus was Pope it is acknowledged by diuers 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 Popedome not for deuotion but for the loue that he bare to certaine 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 neuer number him And in much like sort they deale with others PAP If Pope Ioane were omitted for the filthinesse of her fact why was that close stoole reserued and that monument of hers whereof you told me before set vp in one of the high streetes in Rome For the stoole and the image were as like to continue the memorie of her as any record in writing To be plaine with you I do not see how you can rid your hands of contradiction in this point PROT. Well enough For may not some be of one opinion some of another May not some thinke good to continue the memory of that which others for shame of the world would haue forgotten Did not some of your fellow Papists in France denie that Iohn Chastell was taught by the Iesuits to murther Henry the 4. of France because they were loth to make the Iesuits odious and yet did not others helpe to erect a pillar of stone neare to the kings pallace whereby so much was notified If any man should affirme that the same man who omitted Pope Ioane for the filthinesse of her fact erected such a monument of her in the streets and prescribed such a stoole to be kept for such a purpose I know not how he could deliuer himselfe from contradiction But speaking of diuers men his speech hangeth wel enough together there is no shew of contradictiō in it For further proofe where of it is worthy your consideration that when Paul the third moued with the spirit of God as Harding saith and desirous to reforme the Church gaue charge to his best learned wisest and most godly zealous men that he knew 4 Cardinals three Bishops and two others to enquire and search out what abuses and disorders were in the Church and especially in the Court of Rome which they did offering vp vnto him a libel containing the summe of all their proceedings Some thought their labors worthy of registring others thought them fitter to be burnt which appeares by this that the libell is printed in Crabs edition of the Councell anno 1551. and yet put into the Index librorum prohibitorum by Paul the 4 one of those foure Cardinals who exhibited it to Paule the 3 and left out of Dominicus Nicolinus his edition of the Councels at Venice auspiciis Sixti