all over Europe, and Men were fo much addicted to that See. As to Martinus Polonus, who is faid to have been the firft (tho' falfely, as we have fhewn) that related that Story; he was Archbishop of Cofenza, High Penitentiary to Pope Innocent IV. and confequently would never have related the Hiftory of Pope Joan, had he not been convinced that it was true. Mr. Chevreau, in the fecond Part of his Hiftory of the World, endeavours to weaken the Autho rity of Martinus Polonus, by telling us, that he was a filly Monk, and guilty of a great many very confiderable Miftakes in his Treatife of the Wonders of Rome: as for inftance, he mistakes one Gate for another, the Pantheon for a Temple of Cybele, and the Amphitheatre for a Temple of the Sun. But tho' we fhould allow M. Polonus to have been really guilty of such mistakes (which we can hardly believe) yet this way of arguing; he mistakes the Amphitheatre for a Temple of the Sun, ergo, he mistakes a Pope for a Popefs; is so abfurd and ridiculous, that it deferves no ferious Answer. Some latter Roman Catholic Writers, and namely, Mr. Muratori have boldly advanced, that the Promotion of a Woman to the Papal Chair is not recorded in the genuine Writers of M. Polonus. But as Cardinal Bellarmin after examining, with great care, several antient and authentic Manufcripts, acknowledged, tho' much against his Will, that Martinus Polonus really wrote the History of the Popefs, we may look upon all the Arguments that are produced to the contrary as meers fhifts and quibbles. THE fecond Argument, which the Roman Catholic Writers lay great ftrefs on, is this; The Fathers of the Council of Soiffons, fay they, having wrote to Pope Leo IV. for his Approbation; their Deputies found that he deceased before their Arrival, and returned the fame Year from Rome to France, with the Subfcription of his Succeffor Pope Benedict III. As Pope Joan, commonly called John VIII. is faid to have held the Papal Chair between Leo IV. and Benedict III. they conclude from the Acts of this Council, that Benedict III, fucceeded Leo IV. and confequently, that Lady Joan ought to be expunged out of the Cata logue of the Popes. When the Acts of this Council (which was the fecond of Soiffons) were firft publifhed, the Proteftant Writers challenged the Roman Catholics to produce the antient Manuscripts, from which they had been printed; and fome of them even protested (perhaps too rafhly) that they were ready to give up the matter in debate, if what was advanced could be proved from Manufcripts of uncontroverted Antiquity and Credit. We fay, perhaps too rafhly; becaufe, however authentic the Manufcripts might have been, they ought, before giving up the Queftion, to have examined, and fixed the time of the Departure of the Council's Deputies, of their stay at Rome, and return to Soiffons. But there was no occafion of difcuffing thefe Points: for notwithftanding all the Proteftants could fay, the Roman Catholics could never be induced to bring their Manufcripts to light, or point out the Library where they were to be found. From whence it was concluded, that the Acts of that Council, as published by Sirmond and Binius in their Commentaries, were far from being genuine. For had the Manufcripts, from which they copied the above-mentioned Account of the Council's 1 Council's Deputies Journey to Rome, and Return to Soiffons, been authentic, they would infallibly have produced them, when challenged on terms fo advantageous to their Caufe. To this we may add the inextricable difficulties those have thrown themselves into, who make Benedict III. fucceed, without any intermediate Pope, to Leo IV. They are forced to lengthen the Lives of the Popes, who preceded and followed our Popefs, and to confound the whole Order of their Succeffion. Bellarmin calculates very minutely the time of each Pontificate, except that of Leo IV. which is a plain proof, that he was at a lofs how to difpofe of the two Years, during which the Papal Chair was filled by Joan. In his Treatife of Ecclefiaftical Writers he extends the Pontificate of Nicholas I. who fucceeded Benedict III. to ten Years; but in his Chronology he reduces it to nine and a half, Platina computes only feven Years, nine Months, and thirteen Days. Anaftafius, according to Mr. Muratori's Edition, gives him nine Years, two Months, and twenty Days. Neither do they agree among themselves, with refpect to the number of their Johns. Baronius, Bellarmin, Onuphrius, &c. count only twenty three Popes who bore that Name; whereas Platina, and Bartholomew Caranza, Archbishop of Toledo, in his Abridgement of the Councils, reckon four and twenty Popes of that Name. Such are the Variations and Contradictions that have been introduced into the Hiftory of the Popes, by thofe, who were refolved, at all adventures, to bereave our Female Pope of her Triple Crown, which fhe was furely as worthy of, as most of the profligate Fellows that have wore it. N 3 WC. BUT BUT the finding out of what gave birth to this pretended Fable is, what most of all puzzles the Defenders of the Papal Dignity. Baronius finds out a Patriarchefs placed on the See of Conftantinople, which ftrange Adventure gave rife, in his Opinion, to the Story of a Popefs raised to the See of Rome. One might anfwer Baronius; that if a Woman was really chofen for Patriarch of Conftantinople and all the Eaft, it was not impoffible for another Woman to be chofen Patriarch of Rome and all the Weft: Others tell us, that their Pope John XII. had a Mistress, named Ann, or Joan, or Matilda, or Olimpia, who had a great Afcendant over him; whence, because he let himself be governed by her, he was nick-named Pope Joan. Had all the Popes, who kept Miftreffes, or were governed by them, been deemed Females, we fhould have but very few Males among them. Pope John was not furely more ruled by his Concubine, than in latter Ages Paul III. by his pretty Daughter Madonna Coftanza, who was to him what the famous Donna Lucrezia is faid to have been to Pope Alexander VI. in the following Epitaph." Conditur hoc tumulo Lucretia nomine; fed re THE third Argument fome Roman Catholic Writers greatly infift upon, is drawn from the improbability, and almoft, fay they, impoffi bility, of fuch an event. For what is more improbable, than that a young Woman should be advanced to a Pontificate? Tho' we fhould allow it to be improbable, we ought not from thence to infer that it is false; for how many things 1 things highly improbable are at the fame time undoubtedly true? Befides, we fhall find nothing fo very improbable in the Cafe, if we fuppofe, as we ought to do, that the disguised her felf fo well, that no one could doubt of her being a Man. How many inftances of this nature have all Ages produced? We read of Priefts, Monks, Doctors, Captains, and Soldiers, all Females, who were taken for Men. Befides, the Hiftory of the Patriarchefs of Conftantinople is not fo improbable, as not to be believed by thofe very Writers, who find fuch improbabilities and impoffibilities in the Hiftory of our Popefs. If a Woman could difguife her Sex fo artfully, as to be raised to the Patriarchal See of Conftantinople; why could not another Woman by the fame means, be placed on the Patriarchal See of Rome? Some odd and intricate Circumftances, which give a certain air of improbability to a Fact, do not therefore render it incredible, efpecially when it is attefted by unexceptionable Witneffes. Now the Hiftory of the She-Pontiff is attefted by a great many Witneffes of unquestioned Credit, who flourished long before the Reformation, were all of the Roman Religion, most part of them Clergymen, and even fome canonized Saints. Is it not highly improbable, nay, altogether impoffible, that Men of that Character fhould have forged fuch a Story, fo prejudicial to their own Intereft? Had they forged it, is it likely they would have been allowed to divulge it in their Writings, at a time when the Papal Tyranny prevailed to fuch a degree all over Europe? It is far lefs improbable, that there was a Female Pontiff, than that her Story should have been invented . |