2<l S. N 5., FEU. 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.
Ma. HABINGTON 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.
I can easily believe that Pius IV., without com- mitting 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. T. L.
CHURCHDOWN.
(l t S. xii. 500.)
COTTESWOLDIENSIS takes occasion to point out what he considers a mistake in my Note on Churchdown (1 st 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 the
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 of stratified and unstratified, freshwater and marine," &c.
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, COTTESWOLDIENSIS 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 COTTESWOLDIENSIS 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.
(l t 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
