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	act_n	25	3	4.9641	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

into a Monasterie for his adulterie with one Iudith that there he might apart do Penance for his sinne PROT. Gregorie the fifth liued almost 150. yeares after Pope Ioane and besides there was no Emperour called Ludouike in his time Perhaps Florimondus would haue said Gregorie the fourth for he liued not long before Pope Ioanes time and in his dayes there was one Ludouike an Emperour PAP Indeed it may be so for the numerall figure might soone be mistaken For Gregorie the fourth a man may easily set downe Gregorie the fifth And what say you to it PROT. I say Florimondus is a palterer For Ludouike who liued in Gregorie the fourths time was neuer noted for an adulterer with anie Iudith nor with anie woman else Iudith his wife was suspected of that sinne with others and thereupon was veiled and thrust into a Monasterie by some of the Princes of the Empire And Ludouicke himselfe vpon other pretences was for a time depriued of the Empire But Gregorie the fourth had no hand either in her veiling or in his depriuation as you may see by Baronius Besides this fell out before Pope Ioanes time and therefore doth not hinder but that there was such a Ioane Me thinks you should be drawne drie you talke so idlely PAP If there had bene such a Pope Ioane some historian would haue written either good or bad of her But we reade nothing of her in any historie PROT. Do we reade nothing of her in any history whence haue we this of her aspiring to the Popedome and of her lewd behauiour in the time of her Popedome haue I not proued it vnto you out of the histories PAP Yea but my meaning is that we reade nothing in any historie of her reforming the Church of her determining of causes and questions usually proposed by Bishops to them that are Popes of any intercourse or affaires that she had with King or Emperour PROT. No more do we reade in any historian of any such act done by Anastasius the third who sate as Pope two years and vpward Anastasius the third as Platina witnesseth did nothing worthy of remembrance We reade nothing of any great Acts done by Leo the seuenth He sate 3 yeares and sixe moneths yet he did as little as Anastasius for any thing we reade he neither reformed the Church nor resolued any Bishop his doubts nor intermedled with any Princes PAP Oh but that age wherein you feigne that this Ioane liued was an age wherein fell out great varietie of matter both in the East and in the West In it many Princes and Emperours of great worth reigned In it many men of great learning liued And therefore if there had bene any such monster then we could not but haue heard of it on all sides PROT. So we haue as before I proued But what great varietie of matter fell there out in that age more then ordinarie PAP In that age there was old holding and drawing between the Easterne and Westerne Churches about Images Many Councels were kept by both sides and many euill words passed on all hands PROT. Go go I am ashamed of you and of Florimondus your maister All stories testifie that the difference betweene the Easterne and the Westerne Churches about Images began in the former ages and that though they continued some few yeares after the yeare 800 yet there was no talke of that matter for diuerse yeares before Pope Ioanes dayes Yet I am willing to heare you speake on Wherefore tell me what store of learned men that age brought out PAP Great store but it were too long to reckon them PROT. It may be so Yet you must know that they went for learned men in that age who were but bare Grammarians And therefore were they neuer so many Pope Ioanes acts might passe vnwritten PAP Yea but I would gladly know of you what Dukes what Princes what Kings what Emperours this Ioane inaugured and crowned what Embassadors she entertained what honors she bestowed vpon any persons PROT. Indeed you pose me now especially in that which concerns the inauguring and crowning of Dukes and Princes and Kings and Emperour For I remember none inaugured or crowned by her PAP I thought so And therefore you do well to confesse●it I trust at length you will also confesse that there was no Pope Ioane PROT. Why I pray you did euery Pope inaugure and crowne either Dukes or Princes or Kings or Emperors PAP Nay I say not so But in that age the Emperours themselues had such a reuerend opinion of the Romane Popes that they would not take vpon them to reigne except they gaue them their consent and crowned them PROT. How proue you that PAP By this that Adrian the first baptized the two sonnes of Charles the great and after that annoynted them kings PROT. This proues not your purpose for this fell out in the yeare 781 as Baronius notes and not in that age wherin Pope Ioane liued But do you thinke that euery Pope in that age inaugured some Dukes or Princes or Kings or Emperours I would gladly know of you what Duke or Prince or King or Emperour was inaugured or crowned by Pope Eugenius the 2 who sate in the yeare 824 or by Pope Valentinus who sate in the yeare 827 or by Pope Gregory the 4. who succeeded Valentinus or by Pope Sergius the second who fate in the yeare 844. or by Pope Leo the 4 who sate in the yeare 847. I am sure neuer a one of these crowned any Emperour And I remember not that any one of these annoynted any Duke or King saue Leo the 4 who annoynted Alfred the yongest sonne of Athelwulfus king of England Which furthered him nothing to the attaining of the kingdome For till the death of his three elder brethren for all the Popes annoynting him he liued like a subiect he liued not like a king Wherefore to put you in mind of the maine point though Pope Ioane inaugured or crowned no such persons as you speake of yet you cannot conclude therupon Ergo there was no Pope Ioane PAP But if she bestowed no honors vpon any persons if she made no Bishops if she gaue no Bishoprickes it is more then probable there was neuer any such PROT. Oh but we reade that contulit sacros ordines promouit Episcopos ministrauit Sacramenta caeteraque Romanorum Pontificum exercuit munera she gaue orders she made Bishops she administred the Sacraments and she performed all other offices belonging vnto the Papacie PAP Where reade you that I warrant you you had it out of Bale of whom I wish you to see at your leasure what Florimondus censure is PROT. Iohn Bale for ought I know is farre honester man then Florimondus And to tell you truth if Florimondus raile vpon him I shall haue the better opinion of him For as Tertullian perswaded himselfe that whosoeuer knew Nero would easily beleeue Christianity