CHANCELLOR OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF EXETER, ETC.
LONDON: F. & J. RIVINGTON.
The following Correspondence, which has been reprinted at the request of some friends, as containing a question of Historical interest, will speak for itself. The Reader will kindly bear in mind that the subject has been discussed in "Notes and Queries," a Weekly Periodical, whose crowded pages and limited space dictate the necessity of Brevity.
E. C. H.
The Close, Exeter,
February 18th, 1856.
It has frequently been stated, that Pius V. offered to confirm the use of the English Liturgy, provided Queen Elizabeth would recognize his supremacy: yet no proof has ever been adduced on the subject. Two writers are usually quoted in support of this erroneous statement, namely, Camden and Ware. The former mentions the rumour of such a thing, but he does not express his belief in its truth. [His belief appears to me to be implied. He has given in full the Pope's Letter to the Queen, transmitted through the medium of Parpalia, and then he adds, "Quic Parpalia proposuit non comperi; nec enim, scriptis mandata credo; comminisci vero eum vulgo Historicorum minime lubet. Elizabetham sui similem, Semper Eandem perstitisse, et rem pro Pontificis voto non successisse, omnes norunt. Fama obtinet, Pontificem fidem dedisse, sententiam contra matris nuptias, tanquam injustam, rescissurum, Liturgiam Anglicam sua authoritate confirmaturum, & usum Sacramenti sub utraque specie Anglis permissurum, dummodo illa Romanae Ecclesiae se aggregaret, Romanaeque Cathedrae Primatum agnosceret, imo & haec curantibus aliquot aureorum millia fuisse promissa"--Annales Rerum Anglicarum, p. 51. edit. 1677. See the English Version from Camden's History of Elizabeth, Inf. p. 21. E. C. H.] Yet Camden is quoted as [5/6] an authority for the statement that such an offer was made. Ware merely says, that such a rumour was circulated by the seminary priests for the purpose of producing dissensions. The passage occurs in his Hunting of the Romish Fox, p. 149. Those writers, who have made the assertion on Ware's authority, have utterly mistaken their [6/7] author; for he mentions the rumour for the purpose of refuting it. The whole was a trick [7/8] of the missionary priests, in order to produce divisions in the English Church. On such slender grounds does the assertion rest: and yet we find it repeated by one writer after another, until many persons actually receive the statement as an undoubted fact.
[With all deference, I think that the "mistake" is on the part of T. L. himself. That Ware believed in the Pope's "overtures unto the Queen, to confirm out of his own authority the English Liturgy, and to allow in England the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be used in 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 authority," is clear from this his own assertion, which appears in a subsequent work, "Foxes and Firebrands," Pt. iii, p. 17. (see page 21.)
Nor does the passage in "The Hunting of the Romish Fox," as I read it, convey the meaning attributed to it by T. L., but just the reverse. Ware is speaking of the acts of certain Jesuits in England in the year 1581, some twenty years subsequent to the supposed overtures, and eleven years after the Queen's Excommunication by the Bull of Pius V.; and he tells us that, "these people under several shapes pretending divers opinions, some the Family of Love, others Puritanism, others Anabaptism, others desiring that Her Majesty might enjoy the Common Prayer within her Realm for her and her subjects, provided she could get Pope Gregory's Confirmation to confirm it, saying, that Pius Quintus offered to confirm the same, Her Majesty would have acknowledged it as from the Church of Rome." He then adds, "all these projects of these seminary priests were only to dive into the hearts of men, to find out their inclinations." Now I submit that these passages, to which I presume T. L. refers, even taken by themselves, so far from militating against, fully corroborate the story. The Jesuits in 1581 endeavoured to effect, in their own peculiar way, that which Pope Pius had failed to accomplish by specious promises in 1560, viz, the subjection of England to the Papal See; and if they should not succeed in this "project," at least the result of their machinations would be to sow dissensions, foment divisions, and bring the Book of Common Prayer into con tempt. They therefore hint at the Confirmation of the "English Mass Book," as Faithful Commin, (the Jesuit,) and other plotters, advisedly termed it; and in order to give some weight to their secret innuendo, they refer, as I conceive, to an acknowledged fact, that "Pope Quintus offered to confirm the same (Common Prayer), if her Majesty would then acknowledge it as from the Church of Rome." "Thus," to adopt the language of Ware, "we may see how Rome began to set her emissaries at work, seeing she could not obtain a Toleration for her Religion, nor persuade our Gracious Queen Elizabeth, of happy memory, to own the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction, or to accept of his proposals, how they would dissuade her Protestant subjects from hearing the Liturgy of our Church of England, which they themselves hated, and, thereby seeking to make it more odious to the English Protestants, they termed our service English Mass." (F. and F. Pt. iii, p. 27.)
One thing is clear from the above passages, that Ware did not "mention the rumour for the purpose of refuting it," as T. L. asserts; and I would ask whether it has never struck T. L. as strange, that, although this statement of the Jesuits was openly and assiduously propagated about the year 1581, some twenty years only after the supposed occurrence, and some twenty-two years prior to the decease of Elizabeth, no attempt at denial was made on either side during the Queen's lifetime? E. C. H.]
T. L. has implied that the offer of Pope Pius V. (IV.?) to confirm the use of the English Liturgy, upon the condition of Elizabeth recognizing the Papal supremacy, rests solely on the authority of Camden and Ware. Your correspondent has omitted to refer to the testimony of Lord Chief Justice Coke, who at the Norwich Assizes in August, 1606, only three years after the Queen's death, publicly affirmed in his Charge that "the Pope wrote a letter to Elizabeth, in which he consented to approve the Book of Common Prayer, as used amongst us, as containing, says he, nothing contrary to the truth, and [8/9] comprehending what is necessary to salvation, though not all that ought to be in it; and that he would authorize us to use it, if her Majesty would receive it from him and upon his authority. And this, adds he, is the truth touching Pope Pius V., which I have often heard from the Queen's own month. And I have frequently conferred with noblemen of the highest rank of the state, who had seen and read the Pope's Letter on this subject, as I have related it to you. And this is as true as that I am an honest man.--Charge, p. 28.
[The above quotation is taken from Courayer; the exact words of the Charge, as recorded by Pricket, are as follow--"That Pius Quintus, whom those of their side do account to have been a good Pope, (though by false persuasions too much misled,) before the time of his excommunication against Queen Elizabeth denounced, sent his letter unto her Majesty, in which he did allow the Bible, and Book of Divine Service, as it is now used amongst us, to be authentick, and not repugnant to truth. But that therein was contained enough necessary to salvation, though there was not in it so much as might conveniently be, and that he would also allow it unto us, without changing any part; so as her Majesty would acknowledge to receive it from him the Pope, and by his allowance; which her Majesty denying to do, she was then presently by the same Pope excommunicated: And this is the truth concerning Pope Pius Quintus, as I have faith to God and Men. I have often times heard avowed by the late Queen her own words; and I have conferred with some Lords that were of greatest reckoning in the State, who had seen and read the Letter, which the Pope sent to that effect; as have been by me specified. And this upon my credit, as I am an honest man, is most true." The Lord Coke His Speech and Charge, London, 1607. For "the error in the Pope's name, Quintus for Quartus," se Courayer's Defence, &c., Vol. ii, p. 362, and Inf. p. 14, Note 7.
It is, of course, a matter of small moment to [9/10] a member of the Church of England, whether the Bishop of Rome recognised our Orders, and approved our Liturgy, or no; but should any of your readers be curious in the matter, they may see the pros and cons in Courayer's Defence of the Dissertation on the Validity of the English Ordinations, vol. ii. pp. 359-378.
E. C. HARINGTON.
The Close, Exeter, June, 1855.
Some time since, Mr. Harington stated, that, in alluding to the alleged offer from the Pope to Queen Elizabeth to confirm the Book of Common Prayer, I had omitted the direct testimony of Sir E. Coke, My position was that the rumour was a trick of the seminary priests. In the speech or charge to which Mr. Harington alludes, it is broadly asserted that the offer was made in a letter from the Pope to the Queen. It is surprising to me that such an assertion should not have led Mr. Harington to discredit the report; certainly no evidence can be adduced [10/11] in proof that such a letter was ever written. It is to me clear that all the various accounts were derived from one and the same source, namely, the fabrication of the missionary priests. But my object in this note is simply to inform your readers that Sir E. Coke never hazarded such an assertion. It is true that a charge containing the passage quoted by Mr. Harington was published in Coke's name; but this publication was repudiated by Coke as a forgery. Consequently, any statement founded on that charge is worthless; thus my position, adopted on Ware's authority, remains unshaken. [See Sup. p. 6, Note 2.--E. C. H.] The question is of no importance, yet still it is desirable that accuracy should be regarded in all statements.
It would have been more satisfactory had your correspondent T. L. given his authority for stating that "Sir E. Coke never hazarded such an assertion" as that which I have attributed to him, and that "the Charge containing the passage was repudiated by Coke as a forgery." I will [11/12] mention two of my authorities in refutation of this statement,--Courayer's Defence of the Dissertation on the Validity of the English Ordinations, vol. ii. pp. 360, 378, (where T. L. will find much information on the subject,) and Twisden's Historical Vindication of the Church of England in point of Schism, p. 176. I should in fairness state that I am aware of the 'Address to the Reader' prefixed by Coke to the Seventh Part of his Reports, in which he protests against "the practice of publishing an erroneous and ill-spelled pamphlet, under the name of Pricket, as a Charge given at the assizes holden at the city of Norwich, August 4, 1606." But he does not "repudiate the publication as a forgery;" so far from it, he acknowledges the Charge, but "protests that it was not only published without his privity, but (besides the omission of divers principal matters) that there is no one period therein expressed in that sort and sense (eo sensu ct significatione) as he delivered it." This, though strong language, as regards Pricket's blunders, by no means bears out T. L. in his assertions, if he refers to this Address. Nay, it would seem, from subsequent passages, that Coke alluded to the garbled character of his Charge on law questions, not on matters of fact, as related by him, for he adds that Readers learned in the laws would find not only gross errors and absurdities on law, but palpable mistakings on the very words of art [12/13] and the whole context of that rude and ragged style, wholly dissonant (the subject being legal) from a lawyer dialect." (Coke's Reports, vol. iv. Address, p. 8, edit. 1826.) Any one reading the charge (which is now before me), will see that all this, and much more, may be very true, without the least suspicion of inaccuracy being cast on the passage under dispute, which merely relates a solemn statement [See Sup. p. 9, Note 3.] of fact as made by Coke. [The Lord Coke His Speech and Charge, London, 1607.] It may be important to bear in mind that Sir R. Twisden, who was well acquainted with Coke's Address, and who quotes it in support of a correction which he suggests, (Pius IV. instead of V.) adduces this very Charge of Sir E. Coke, and this very passage, in confirmation of the proposal of Pope Pius to Queen Elizabeth. Twisden adds that, "I, myself, have received it (the story) from such as I cannot doubt it, they having had it from persons of nigh relation unto them, who were actors in the managing of the business." Courayer also, though [13/14] referring to Coke's complaints of his "Speeches [14/15] being published, not only without his order and [15/16] knowledge, but with abundance of faults," (alluding to the above preface,) quotes from the Charge, [16/17] without the least hesitation, the passage under discussion, and founds upon it a lengthened argument of several pages. 1 shall therefore be curious to learn the authority upon which T. L. asserts that "Sir E. Coke never hazarded such an assertion," and that he "repudiated" his published Charge "as a forgery." On one point I agree with T. L., that "it is desirable that accuracy should be regarded in all statements."
E. C. HARINGTON.
The Close, Exeter, Dec. 1855.
[The whole passage runs thus: "The Queen's moderation was better received at Rome than at home; where the Pope, however a violent heady man, considering no doubt his own loss in breaking off all commerce with so potent a kingdom, began to hearken to terms of accommodation, and was content things should stand as they are, the Queen acknowledging Ins primacy, and the reformation from him. But his death ensuing the 18th August, 1559, left the design to be prosecuted by his successor Pius IV., who, by letters (sent by Vincentius Parpalia, a person of great experience, employed by Cardinal Poole, in his former negotiations, and of late in that hither,) of the 5th of May 1560, directed 'Charissimae in Christo filiae Elizabethae Reginae Angliae, did assure her, 'Omnia de nobis tibi polliceare, quae non modo ad animae tuae salutem conservandam, sed etiam ad dignitatem regiam stabiliendam et confirmandam, pro authoritate, pro loco, ac munere quod nobis a Deo comissum fuit, a nobis desiderares,' &c. Upon this, and their relations who then lived, and had part in the action, the English affirm Pius IV. would have confirmed the Liturgy of the Church of England: and indeed bow can any imagine other? For doubtless nothing could have been more to her dishonour, than so suddenly to have changed what she had wit so great consideration established and the Pope assuring her she might promise herself from him all he could do, I know not what less or other he could expect she would ask. But where Sir Edward Cook, in his Charge at Norwich, as it is now printed, says, this offer came from Pius V., I conceive it a mistake, and should have been Pius IV., (as in another place he names Clement the 9th who yet never was, for Clement the 8th,) and the rest of the narration there not to be without absurdities, and to be one of those deserves the author's censure, when he says, there is no one period in the whole expressed in the sort and sense that he delivered it; for certainly Pius V. from his coming to the Popedom 1566, rather sought by raising against her foreign power abroad, and domestick commotions at home, to force her to his obedience, than by such civil ways as we now speak of to allure her; though the thing itself is no question true, however the person that offered it be mistaken in some circumstances.
They that make a difficulty in believing this, object it to have been first divulged 1606, 46 years after the proffer of it. That Sir Edward Cook averred to have received it from the Queen herself, not then alive to contradict him. But for my part I confess I find no scruple in it, for I have ever observed the wisdom of that Court, to give what it could neither sell nor keep; as Paulus V. did the Kingdom of Ireland to Queen Mary, admitted the five Bishopricks, erected by her father, approved the dissolution of the Monasteries made by him, etc., of which nature no question this was. For the being first mentioned 46 years after, that is not so long a time but many might remember and I myself have received it from such as I cannot doubt of it, they having had it from persons of nigh relation unto them who were actors in the managing of the business. Besides, the thing itself was in effect printed many years before for he that made the answer to Saunders his seventh book, De visibili Monarchia, who it seems had been very careful to gather the beginnings of Queen Elizabeth, that there might be an exact history of her, 'tandem aliquando, quia omnia acta diligenter observavit, qui summis Riepublicae negotiis consulto interfuit,' relates it thus:
That a nobleman of this country being about the beginning of the Queen's reign at Rome, Pius IV. asked him of her Majesties casting his authority out of England, who made answer that she did it being persuaded by testimonies of Scripture, and the laws of the realm, nullam illius esse in terra aliena jurisdictionem. Which the Pope seemed not to believe, her Majesty being wise and learned, but did rather think the sentence of that Court against her mother's marriage to be the true cause; which he did promise not only to retract, 'sed in ejus gratiam quaecunque possum praeterea facturum, dum illa ad nostram Ecclesiam se recipiat, et debitum mihi primatus titulum reddat,' and then adds, 'extant ad apud nos articuli, Abbatis Sanctae Salutis (Parpalia) manu conscripti, extant Cardinalis Moronae literae, quibus nobilem illum vehementer hortabatur, ut eam rem nervis omnibus apud reginam nostram sollicitaret. Extant hodie nobilium nostrorum aliquot, quibus Papa multa aureorum millia pollicitus est, ut istius amicitiae atque foederis inter Romanam Cathedram at Elizabetham serenissimam authores essent.' This I have cited the more at large, for that Camden seems to think, what the Abbot of St. Saviour propounded was not in writing, and because it being printed seven years before the Cardinal Morona's death, by whose privity (as Protector of the English) this negotiation passed, without any contradiction from Rome, there can no doubt be made of the truth of it. And assuredly, some who have convenieney and leisure may find more of it than bath been yet divulged: for I no way believe the Bishop of Winchester would have been induced to write, it did constare of Paulus IV., nor the Queen herself, and divers others of those times, persons of honour and worth, (with some of which I myself have spoken,) have affirmed it for an undoubted truth, did not somewhat more remain (or at least had formerly been) than a single letter of Pius IV., which apparently had reference to matters then of greater privacy. And there I hold it not unworthy a place, that I myself talking sometime with an Italian gentleman (versed in publick affairs) of this offer from the Pope, be made much scruple of believing it, but it being in a place where books were at hand, I shewed him on what ground I speak, and asked him if he thought men could be devils to write such an odious lie, had it not been so. 'Well (says he) if this were heard in Rome amongst religious men, it would never gain credit; but with such as have in their hands the Maneggi della Corte [The Transactions of the Court] (for that was his expression) it may be held true.'"
Historical Vindication of the church of England in point of Schism, p. 175. "He that made answer to Sanders's Seventh Book," above referred to, was Dr. Bartholomew Clerke, styled by Soames (History of Reformation, Vol. iv. p. 725, Note S.) "a respectable contemporary authority, who had excellent means of information, and who appeals to existing vouchers, both documentary and personal, that some papal concession was to be expected beyond the recognition of Elizabeth's legitimacy.' The title of Clerke's Reply is "Fidelis Servi subito Infideli Responsio, cum examinatione errorum N. Sanderi in Libro de Visibilis Ecclesice Monarchia."
Soames also quotes the passage in the Charge relative to this question, without implying the slightest doubt as to its authenticity. History of Reformation, Vol. iv. p. 726. See also Inf. p. 25, Note 7.
I certainly relied on Coke's own assertion as [17/18] quoted by Mr. Harington, and I still think that the words bear me out in my conclusion. In this opinion, I am supported by the writers in the Biographia Britannica. [I do not admit this. The reader may judge for himself by referring to Vol. ii. p. 1397, Note y.--E. C. H.] I regard the story as so improbable, that I cannot but view Coke's words as involving its rejection, and the repudiation of all the statements in the charge. The fiction, in my opinion, is so manifest, that I can never believe that it was received by Coke.
I was quite aware of what had been advanced by Courayer, whose statements I had fully considered. [Is this possible? See Inf. p. 27.--E. C. H.] I wish to refer Mr. Harington to Constable's reply to Courayer on this particular point. After that reply, I cannot depend on Courayer in his relation of a story about the Pope.
My opinion has ever been, that the story was an invention by the missionary priests to promote their own ends. There is, indeed, another sup position. Thus Durell affirms, that the story was a Puritan invention, for the purpose of inducing the belief among the people that the Book of Common Prayer must be Popish. Fuller, who was generally prepared to give credit to reports, certainly rejected this story.
T. L. has (agreeably) disappointed me. I had anticipated 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 rejection.
I believe that the words of Sir E. Coke cannot by any possibility be so construed. [See Sup. p. 12.] 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 himself even to heresy itself in regard that whatsoever 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 (1st S. xii. 458.) T. L. expressed his "surprise that the assertion that the offer (of recognising the Book of Common Prayer) was made in a letter from the Pope to the Queen, should not have led Mr. Harington to discredit the report." May I ask why? Does T. L. also reject as a forgery the letter "To our most dear [19/20] 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. iii, 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 letters"? (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 specific offer; nor do the words of Coke 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 graciously receive, [20/21] diligently hear, and 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 roave 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 disannul the sentence against her mother's marriage as unjust, 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 promised to those that should procure the same."--Camden's History of Elizabeth, p. 47, edit. 1688.--See the Latin Version, Sup. p. 5, Note 1.
T. L., in his first communication, (1st 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 [21/22] 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 unto the Queen, to confirm 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 authority. But God gave her His grace, which was above all these proffers, neither to tolerate Popery within her dominions, nor to accept of these proffers from the hands of Rome; in which act she verified the motto, Semper Eadem."--Part iii. p. 17. [See Sup. 6, Note 2.]
Shall I be pardoned by T. L., if I ask him in future (should he deem another communication requisite) to specify the work, page, and edition of the author to whom he may refer? The mention of a name only renders an investigation somewhat difficult. He refers me, for instance, to "Constable's reply to Courayer on this particular point." In what work of Constable is this reply to be found? I am acquainted with one work only of Constable, viz. his Remarks upon F. Le Courayer's Book in Defence of the English Ordinations, by Clerophilus Alethes (attributed to Constable); but this cannot be the work referred to by T. L., as it is a reply to Courayer's [22/23] Dissertation, whereas the reference to Coke's Charge by Courayer is in the 2nd vol. of his Defence of the Dissertation, which I am not aware that Constable ever answered. And, after all, who was Constable? A writer who implicitly believed, and unhesitatingly adopted the monstrous fable of the Nag's Head Consecration!--a story utterly rejected by Lingard himself as a palpable forgery!--History of England, vol. vi. p. 668., edit. 1849.
E. C. HARINGTON.
The Close, Exeter, Jan. 1856.
We are, it seems, contending about a point which we cannot settle. We can only hold to our own opinions.
Mr. Harington seems to think that the Pope actually made the offer. On the contrary, I contend that there is no evidence to support such an opinion; and, moreover, that the proposal is so improbable, that it is scarcely possible to believe that it could have been made. Coke assuredly disavowed the charge which was put forth in his name; and therefore its statements in such a matter cannot be received. [Sup. p. 12.--E. C. H.]
 It is safer to adopt the view which was adopted by Ware and others, namely, that the whole was a fiction invented by the priests to promote their own ends. [Is this so? See Sup. p. 6, Note 2. Neale seems to have held a very different opinion respecting Ware's conviction of the truth of the story; for having stated, as an undoubted fact, that Pius IV. did make the proposals in question, he quotes as his authority one writer only, viz. Robert Ware! History of the Puritans, Vol. i. p. 142, edit. 1822. E. C. H.] Camden only speaks of a rumour. It is singular that the Archbishop of Spalato expressed a belief that the Pope might be induced to confirm the English Liturgy; but he did not allude to any offer of such a thing at a previous period. [Could T. L. ever have read what the Archbishop of Spalato (Mark Antony de Dominis) has written on the subject? See Inf. p. 29, Note 2.--E. C. H.] Such a man contending for such an object would certainly have mentioned the offer if he had believed the story.
The priests succeeded in their object; for in various publications by the Puritans the story is alleged as a proof that the Church of England was popish and idolatrous.
I regard the Book of Common Prayer as so utterly hostile to Rome, that I cannot believe that such an offer could have been made. In such a case, therefore, I could not depend on doubtful evidence; were it even possible for a Pope to sanction the Book of Common Prayer, the fair [24/25] inference would be, that Papists see nothing in our Liturgy at variance with the Breviary and the Missal; and thus the assertions of the Puritans and Presbyterians would be proved to have been correct. [See the Reply of Pope Pius to the Guisiards and Spanish Faction, Sup. p. 10.--E. C. H.] Rome must renounce her errors before a Pope could offer to confirm our Prayer Book. I therefore not only look upon the thing as improbable, but as impossible; and I am inclined to think that in this view I should be supported by almost all Papists and Protestants.
Mr. Harington seems inclined to smile at my assertion of a repudiation on the part of Coke. Yet can any of the statements of the alleged charge be received after Coke's assertion, that no one period was "expressed in the sort and sense that he delivered it." I regard this as a complete repudiation of the publication. [See Sup. p. 12. It is worthy of remark that Abbot's opponent, John Eudaemon, in his Apology for Garnet, against Sir E. Coke, (1610,) brings a charge of forgery and false statements against Coke himself, and founds the accusation upon the Speech, and the passage in the Speech, which T. L. repudiates! E. C. H.]
I can easily believe that Pius IV., without committing himself or his Church, may have secretly furthered the circulation of the story for the purpose of creating divisions among Protestants. Beyond this my belief does not extend.
I willingly leave the question of "Pope Pius and the Book of Common Prayer" where it is, "unsettled," if T. L. pleases so to pronounce it; but I shall be pardoned for reminding T. L. that in his first communication (May 25th, 1855), he volunteered a "settlement" of the point at issue, contrary, I submit, to evidence; and hence were elicited the few remarks which I have since ventured to offer. How far T. L. has succeeded in "settling" the question in favour of his own views, I must leave to the decision of the reader. T. L.'s last communication merely contains a renewal of his former positions and a reiteration of his previous convictions; whether they are tenable or not I wish not categorically to pronounce; but I may hazard a doubt whether "almost all Papists and Protestants," will acquiesce in T. L.'s conclusions; nay, I question whether, after all that has been advanced, they will allow him to claim either Camden, Coke, or Ware. [To the authorities already adduced I may add, Strype's Annals of the Reformation, Vol. i. pt. , p. 339, edit. 1821, and Dr. Warner's Eccles. History of England, Vol. ii. p. 427.] By the bye, T. L. has not answered my question respecting Constable's Reply to Courayer, on the subject before us; I must therefore reply to it myself. The fact is that Constable never did [26/27] respond to the 3rd Chap. of the 5th Book of Courayer's Defence of the Dissertation, or to any portion of it; and it is to this Work, and to this Chapter of Courayer, that I have so repeatedly referred. What Constable did was simply this, to copy from Le Quien's Answer to Courayer's Dissertation some thirty lines, in reply to about seventeen lines of Courayer, in which Camden's statement is incidentally mentioned. But could T. L., when he penned the paragraph respecting Constable, be really aware that Courayer responded to Le Quien, and consequently to Constable, in an elaborate defence of the story for the truth of which I contend; that this defence occupies the entire 3rd Chap. of the 5th Book of the Defence of the Dissertation; and that, in addition to the authorities already adduced, Courayer quotes the clear and direct testimony of Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, in his answer to the Apology for Garnet, (A. D. 1613,) [27/28] and of Lancelot Andrewes, in his Reply to Bellarmine [28/29] (A.D. 1610), in illustration of the fact? ["It was, without doubt, from all these authors, and not from Camden alone, that Antony de Dominis, (Archbishop of Spalato) took the same fact, which he gives us as sufficiently authorized to deserve credit. 'Ab authoribus certe non vanis (says that author,) audio Pontificem Romanum Reginae Elizabethae obtulisse Permissionem generalem, qua omnibus Romano-Catholicis liceret adire Templa Protestantium, ac his Precibus se adjungere eâ Conditione, ut Regina dictam Precum Formulam praeciperet ut a Papa datam, ac Populo Anglicano Pontificiâ Autoritate praescriptam, quod quidem illa prudenter recusavit.' He had seen several of those who reported this fact upon their own knowledge, and who knew it from the original. Such certainly he means by 'Authoribus certe non vanis,' and not a bare vulgar rumour, and still less the Presbyterians, whose fiction, had this been so, he would not have adopted, as he was engaged in a system, and in principles very opposite to that party."--Defence, Vol. ii. p. 366.] How was it, by the way, that Bellarmine, who had it in his power to discover the falsehood, (if falsehood it had been,) never attempted to reply to the statement of Andrewes? But I forbear to adduce any further authority or to advance any additional arguments, as I have agreed to leave the question "unsettled." I must content myself with [29/30] recommending those who may be interested in the question, to examine for themselves, and I will venture to predict that they will find that "the assertion does" not "rest upon such slender grounds" [See Sup. p. 8.] as T.L. would induce them to believe.
E. C. HARINGTON.
The Close, Exeter, Feb. 1856.
["Ad Litteras accedo, (writes Abbot,) quas Cokus Oratione Norvici de Tribunali habita a Pio V. ad Elizabetham Reginam missas commeminit; quibus Fidem Pontifex fecerat so Liturgiam nostram Anglicanam, et Reformatae Religionis Formulam, suo Calculo et Authoritate probaturum, mode a se acciperet omnia, ipsi accepta referret, eoque en Sedi Romanae subjectam daret. Litterae autem illae satis apud nos celebres fuerunt, agitat saepius in Parliamentis, et a Reginâ ipsâ commemoratae, etiam a vestris quoque confesse; qui cum nihil adferre possent quod in Liturgiâ nostrâ reprehenderent, inde sibi causam recusationis arripuerunt, quad illa Ecclesiae Romanae probata non esset. Celebris eo Nomine Thomas Treshamus Eques Auratus, Pater Francisci Proditoris, qui sub Expeditione Hispanicâ de Recusatione postulatus recognovit palam Litteras illas, et illâ tantum quam dixi Causâ refractarius mansit. Memoratae quoque illae in Concionibus, praesente Reginâ ipsa, quin et Teste advocatâ; nec tamen quisquam e vestris sive privatim sive publicè mutire in contrarium ausus est."--Antilogia contra Apologiam Eudaemon Johannis Jesuitae pro Henrico Garneto, p. 15.
["This passage" (adds Courayer) is of very great importance in many respects. We not only see in it the truth of Letters being sent from Rome, but we also learn from it that the Queen had several times made mention of them in her Parliaments; that she was appealed to for the truth of them in public sermons; that the Catholicks themselves durst not disown them; that Sir Thomas Tresham in particular acknowledged them for certain, and that all the reason he gave for not conforming to the Liturgy was, that the Church of Rome had not solemnly approved it. These are plain facts, which we do not find any one ever went about to contest; and they are founded not upon uncertain reports, but upon testimonies given publicly, attested even by those who might have learned them from the Queen herself, and so well supported as to convince even the Catholicks themselves."--Defence of the Dissertation, Vol. ii. p. 365.]
["Certe, illud tentatum constat, et a Paulo (Pio) IV. conditionem impetratam, porro et Reginae ipsi delatam esse, dum in Primatum ipsius consentire modo vellet, de caeteris si a se fieri peteret, si Autoritate suâ factum agnosceret, gratiam facturum Pontificem ut Sacra hic omnia hoc ipso, quo nunc sunt apud nos modo, procurari faa esset." Tortura Torti p. 165, edit. 1851. "This fact, (to adopt the remark of Courayer), is alledged with all the assurance that certainty and notoriety can inspire; but what renders it still more credible, is, that I do not know that Bellarmine ever pretended to disown it. And yet he had it in his power to discover the falsehood of it, and Ins silence is almost equal to a concession, since, had this fact been as injurious to the memory of the Popes, as Father Le Quien pretends, that Cardinal at least, as zealous for their honour as for the truth, would not have failed to expose it, and shew the falsehood of it."--Defence, Vol. ii. p. 366.]