Qnd §, No 5,, Fer, 2. '56.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
99 
tend 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. 
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. Camden only speaks of a rumour. 
It is singular that the Archbishop of Spalato ex- 
pressed 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. Such a man contending for such an ob- 
ject 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 in- 
ference 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. Rome must renounce her errors before 
a Pope could offer to confirm our Prayer Book. 
I therefore not only look upon the thing as im- 
probable, but as impossible ; and I am inclined 
to think that in this view I should be supported 
by almost all Papists and Protestants. 
Mr. Hanineron 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.” Iregard this as a complete 
repudiation of the publication. 
can easily believe that Pius IV., without com- 
mitting himself or his church, may have secretly 
furthered the circulation of the story for the 
ee of creating divisions among Protestants. 
eyond this my belief does not extend. T.L. 
CHURCHDOWN. 
(1* S. xii. 500.) 
Corrresworptensis takes occasion to point out 
what he considers a mistake in my Note on 
Churchdown (1" S. xii. 341.). In his haste, he 
has overlooked the scope of that Note. In writing 
for a literary paper like “N. & Q.,” it would 
have violated the unities to have trenched on thie 
domain of descriptive geology. I merely alluded 
incidentally to physical character, and in so doing 
stated that the hill in question, and the Cottes- 
wolds opposite, are of the same formation, being 
for the most part of marine formation. Turning 
to Sir C. Lyell’s Manual, fifth ed. p.3., I find the 
word thus defined : 
“The term formation expresses in geology any assem- 
blage of rocks which have some character in common, 
whether of origin, age, or composition. Thus we speak 
z stratified and unstratified, freshwater and marine,” 
Cc. 
Murchison, H. De la Beche, and other savants, 
employ the word in like sense. So much for the 
word. As regards the fact, Churchdown Hill 
contains the same strata, as far as they go, as the 
Cotteswold range. The marls of this outlier cor- 
respond to those exhibited in the escarpments of 
the Cotteswold chain facing it; whilst the upper 
lias shales, and inferior oolite of its summit, have 
been denuded and worn away. Such is the view 
of that high authority, Sir R. I. Murchison, who 
says of it: 
“The intervening valley has been hollowed out sub- 
sequently to the formation of the lias and the oolite; 
or, in other words, that there was a period when the 
strata of the Cotteswolds extended in solid masses as far 
as Churchdown Hill.” — Geology of Cheltenham, p. 149. 
Did this hypothesis need further corroboration 
I would cite that indefatigable local geologist, the 
Rev. P. B. Brodie, the study of whose work on the 
Fossil Insects of the Secondary Rocks of England, 
is essential to a correct knowledge of the subject. 
In fine, CorrEswoLpIENsIs seems unacquainted 
with the fact, that the lias is by many geologists 
included in the oolitic group. (Lyell’s Manual, 
p. 318.) Am I then open to the charge of inaccu- 
racy in remarking, in a Note of an ecclesiological 
character, that the Cotteswolds and this outlying 
hill are of the same formation? Having disposed 
of the alleged elementary mistake, I would recom- 
mend CorreswoLpiensis a perusal of Dr. Whate- 
ly’s article on the ambiguity of the word “same,” 
and would enjoin less precipitation; though 
doubtless, in proffering his correction, he was ac- 
tuated by kindly motives. F. S. 
Churchdown. 
“ MINNE” AND MINNESINGERS. 
(1* S. xii. 426. 520.) 
It is the opinion of scholars that the word 
Minne was derived from the obsolete verb meinen, 
to keep in mind, and expressed the affectionate 
remembrance which one person had of another, 
id est, keeping. that person in mind, and finally 
that it became the generic term for love. The 
