60 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
(20d S, No3., Jaw. 19. 756. 
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 Oxp Eneuanp 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 OF COMMON PRAYER, 
(29 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 TI’. 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" 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. Harina- 
Ton to discard the report.” May I ask why ? 
Does T. L, also reject as a forgery the letter Zo 
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. 11. 
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” ? (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 
eri 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, 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 
rave at them with the common sort of historians I list not. 
That Queen Ulizabeth 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- 
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*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 Fores and 
Firebrands, wherein, having given in full the 
letter of Pope Pius to Elizabeth, he states that — 
“This Papal Bpistle could not prevail, neither could 
Vincent Parpalia’s other overtures to the Queen, to con- 
Jirm out of his own authority the Hnglish 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 proffers, 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 111. p. 17. { 
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 men- 
