Page:Notes and Queries - Series 2 - Volume 1.djvu/68

 60

NOTES AND QUERIES.

[2nd g..}?o s., JAK. 19. '50.

Norham, similar to those I have quoted from Jarrow, but coming down to a later period : the wine purchased by the churchwardens, through- out the whole of the fifteenth century, and so late as 1515, is expressly stated to be " for the com- munion of the parishioners." Perhaps an exami- nation of parish accounts in other parts of Eng- land, would show that this retention of the cup was not confined to the laity in the North of England. I should be glad if those who have access to such documents would examine them, and give us the results of such an investigation. Can OLD ENGLAND or F. C. H. point out any " Benedictiones vini," save in wine-growing dis- tricts (which is, of course, a very different thing), with any claim to antiquity ?

POPE PIUS AND THE BOOK OP COMMON PRAYER.

(2 nd S. i. 39.)

T. L. has (agreeably) surprised me. I had an- ticipated some proof that Sir E. Coke "had never hazarded the assertion" attributed to him, and that " he repudiated the charge containing the passage as a forgery." This proof has resolved itself into T. L.'s conviction that " the story is improbable," and therefore that " Coke's words " (quoted from his Reports) must involve its re- jection.

I believe that the words of Sir E. Coke cannot by any possibility be so construed. But why is the story " improbable "? Does T. L. deny that Pius IV., in reply to the Guisiards and Spanish faction, who objected to a nuncio being sent into England, declared " that he would humble him- self even to heresy itself, in regard that whatso- ever was done to gain souls to Christ did beseem the (Roman )See"? (Heylyn's Reformation, vol. ii. p. 354., edit. 1849.)

In a previous communication (1 st S. xii. 458.) T. L. expressed his " surprise that the assertion that the offer (of recognising the Book of Com- mon Prayer) was made in a letter from the Pope to the Queen, should not have led MR. HARING- TON to discard the report." May I ask why ? Does T. L. also reject as a forgery the letter To our most dear Daughter in Christ, Elizabeth, Queen of England, addressed to her by Pope Pius, and transmitted, through the medium of Vincentio Parpalia, the same year (A.D. 1560), and which is given in full by Camden, Collier, and Ware ? (Camden's History of Elizabeth, p. 46., edit. 1688 ; Collier's Eccles. Hist., vol. vi. p. 395., edit. 1840 ; Ware's Foxes and Firebrands, Pt. HI. p. 15.) Or does he gainsay the statement of Heylyn, with reference to what was urged upon Elizabeth in favour of the nuncio's admission in the following year, " That the Pope had made a

fair address unto the Queen by his last year's let- ters" f (History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 354., edit. 1849.) And if not, why does the allusion to a papal missive render the story "improbable" in the estimation of T. L. ? But, after all, there is no necessity to admit that " the offer was made in a letter from the Pope to the Queen," if it be meant that a particular letter contained the spe- cific offer ; nor do the words of Collier necessarily imply as much, even supposing that Pricket had printed them verbatim ; though it is clear that the offer, if made, was connected immediately with a written communication from the Pope. Now we find that the Pope, in the letter to the Queen which he sent with his nuncio, distinctly tells her that

" Vincentio shall treat with you more at large, and shall declare our fatherly affection ; whom we pray your Highness that you will gracipusly receive, diligently hear, sand give the same credit to his speech which you would do to ourself."

Upon which passage Camden (who, by the bye, does not imply his disbelief in the story, but just the contrary), remarks :

" What matters Parpalia propounded I find not, for I do not think his instructions were put in writing; and to rave at them with the common sort of historians I list not. That Queen Elizabeth still persisted, like herself, semper eadem, always the same, and that the matter succeeded not to the Pope's desire, all men know. The report goeth, that the Pope gave his faith ' that he would dis- annul the sentence against her mother's marriage as un- i just, confirm the English Liturgy by his authority, and grant the use of the Sacraments to the English under both kinds, so as she would join herself to the Romish Church, and acknowledge the primacy of the Church of Rome ; ' yea, and that a certain 1000 crowns were pro- mised to those that should procure the same." Camden, p. 47.

T. L., in his first communication (1 st S. xi.401.), stated that Ware " mentions the rumour (as to the Pope's offer) in his Hunting of the Romish Fox, only for the purpose of refuting it." That the passage referred to can bear no such meaning is clear, from another passage in his Foxes and Firebrands, wherein, having given in full the letter of Pope Pius to Elizabeth, he states that

"This Papal Epistle could not prevail, neither could Vincent Parpalia's other overtures to the Queen, to con- firm out of his own authority the English Liturgy, and to allow in England the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be under both kinds (as at Bohemia'), provided that Her Majesty would rank herself and her subjects with the Church of Rome, and own all from that See and its au- thority. But God gave her His grace, which was above all these < pi' on?ers > neither to tolerate Popery within her do- minions, nor to accept of these proffers from the hands of Rome ; in which act she verified the motto, Semper eadem." Part in. p. 17.

Shall I be pardoned by T. L., if I ask him in future (should he deem another communication requisite) to specify the ivorh, page, and edition of the author to whom he may refer? The men-