Venice: February 1548 | British History Online

Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 5, 1534-1554. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1873.

Citation:

'Venice: February 1548', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 5, 1534-1554, ed. Rawdon Brown( London, 1873), British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol5/pp223-225 [accessed 25 November 2024].

February 1548



Feb.? MS. St. Mark's Library. Cod. xxiv. Cl. x. No date of time. Printed in v. iv. pp. 73–81. “Epistolaram Reginaldi Poli,” Ed. Brescia, 1752.	531. Cardinal Pole to the Bishop of Badajos [Francesco Navarre].
	Has received from the [titular] Bishop of Worcester [Richard Pate] a writing composed by the Bishop of Badajos and sent to Pate, pointing out certain passages requiring explanation and also correction in the books addressed heretofore by Pole to the King of England, (fn. 1) Subsequently received a letter from Badajos asking pardon for the liberty he had taken. Finds nothing to forgive, but much to be grateful for, in proof of which he long delayed answering Badajos' complimentary letter written last year, but to this other containing these censures he replies immediately. Regrets that the rod was so sparingly used, and will respond in the order observed by his censor, who, in the first place, remarks that Saint Peter did not walk upon the sea to meet Christ, as Saint John does not say so; nor is it in accordance with the translators, many of whom say that Peter swam towards Christ. It seems to Pole that a man disposed to swim does not clothe himself if naked, but if clothed strips himself. Now St. John says that St. Peter, being naked, clad himself; but at any rate, if Pole understood the passage to mean that Peter walked on the sea, he was at liberty to use this interpretation, which has been adopted by some very learned commentators. Secondly, Badajos does not approve of the comparison about the recognition of Christ by Peter and John the Baptist, it seeming to him that Pole attributes the recognition by John the Baptist to mere natural causes, which would be untrue and would confound him with Nathaniel and the Centurion, who in fact recognized Christ by natural signs. The Baptist recognised him on the appearance of the dove in the act of baptism, and not only Peter, but the rest of the Apostles likewise, confessed him to be God, through Divine revelation. If Badajos still finds these passages at variance with the opinion set forth in his books, Pole will have them altered or omitted in the second edition which he is about to publish. (fn. 2) Thirdly, Pole justifies the opinion given by him, according to the words of Christ, about the preeminence to be conceded to St. John over the other prophets, and it seems to him that on this point Badajos agrees with him. Admits his having exceeded, in saying that Peter “ordered” the observance of the legal ceremonies; he should have said “permitted,” and he will correct accordingly [in the new edition.] (fn. 3) Where allusion is made to the virginity which God can restore, it is evident that Pole does not mean physical virginity, which Badojos in conclusion seems to admit, as he does not urge Pole to alter the phrase. With regard to the reply of Thomas More, Badajos observes that either Pole's narrative is defective, or that it does not contribute to the praise of More. Does not know whether his narrative is defective, he merely knows that it is true. The Bishop of Badajos blames More, because on his examination he so long delayed speaking on the matter of Faith (in causâ Fidei), and adds that Pole in his panegyric might have omitted this circumstance. Does not think so; is of opinion that the time for More to speak was after being condemned by the fifty-eight judges. It was not the same case with Rochester, whose duty it was as a bishop to speak immediately on being examined; More was a layman, whom they chose to condemn by a civil decree, not an ecclesiastical one; and although it was contrary both to the laws of God and the Church, it seemed to him more becoming, when examined about the law, to reply according to law, depriving his judges of the arguments derived by them from the common law (arma legis forensis) which they had used against him, as he did when he answered, that however just this decree might be, he had never infringed it by word or deed, so that he could not be tried, and still less condemned, by it. Could a consummate lawyer, who for many years had himself been a judge, make a more just defence? Is of opinion that in this matter More cannot be said to have failed in his duty to the Church by not replying immediately that the decree was contrary to the Divine law, as he had neither been interrogated about this nor was he tried for violation of Divine law, but of human law, which he therefore had first of all to confute; and when he saw himself condemned contrary to the right (jus) of human law, he then availed himself of the ecclesiastical arguments (armis ecclesiasticis), adding that even had he violated that decree, as it was contrary to Divine law, they could not justly condemn him either by Divine or human right (nec divino nee humano jure). The more Pole considers the different conduct observed by More and Rochester, the more he is convinced that they acted entirely by Divine inspiration. Hopes that on reflection Badajos also will be convinced of this, and as he would have wished Pole in some places to have been less bitter and vehement in reproving the King, he will justify himself in a writing addressed to the King's son, which he will place as introduction to the new edition of those books, (fn. 4) and which he will send to the Bishop of Badajos. There remain two other passages, one considered obscure by Badajos, and which Pole will easily correct, the other being criticised, because when quoting the testimony of the Father concerning the Son in St. John's Gospel, (fn. 5) Pole did not give the precise words; but as he seems to have rendered the sense, Badajos dues not insist on correction.
	Badajos also noted the typographical errors, and made the index of the work, which, together with the perusal of these hooks and his notes and corrections, greatly comfort Pole, because they imply approval, and are a pledge of the Bishop's affection.
	Rome, February 1548?
	[Latin, 205 lines.]
Feb. 18. Lettere Secrete, Capi Consiglio X., File no. 4.	532. Motion made in the Council of Ten by the Chief Giovanni Antonio Venier, Knight.
	That the Armoury Halls of the Council of Ten, and the jewels of St. Mark's Sanctuary, be shown to some English gentlemen. Ayes, 17. Noes, 0. Neutrals, 0.
	[Italian.]