¹ “Dryden's Religio Laid and Roman Catholic Apologetics,” PMLA, LXXX (June 196S), 190–198. The reader is referred to this article for biographical information on Roman Catholic writers discussed there and again in the present essay.

² Cf. A Catalogue of the Collection of Tracts for and against Popery (Published in or about the Reign of James II) in the Manchester Library, ed. Thomas Jones in Publications of the Chetham Society, Vols. xlviii (18S9) and LXIV (1865). See also J. Gillow, Literary and Biographical History of the English Catholics, 5 vols. (London and New York, 1885–1902). 3 The long chapter (iv) of Louis I. Bredvold's The Intellectual Milieu of John Dryden (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1934), promisingly entitled “Roman Catholic Apologetics in England,” betrays a lack both of sympathy for and knowledge of them.

⁴ Thomas B. Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of James II, ed. Sir Chas. Firth, 6 vols. (London, 1913–15), ii, 853 f.

⁵ Macaulay, ii, 764. Macaulay may have been thinking only of tracts published during the short reign of James II, but many older Roman Catholic and Anglican writings were reissued during this time.

⁶ Cf. ii. 36 of my article, PMLA, LXXX, 197. I have found other indications of the esteem in which Woodhead's work was held at the time.

⁷ S. C. Carpenter (The Church in England, 597–1688, London, 1954, p. 450) writes: “Some of the Roman Catholic propaganda was both learned and devout. The Jesuits were well equipped controversialists.”

⁸ Charles E. Ward, The Life of John Dryden (Chapel Hill, N. C, 1961), p. 212.

⁹ There is a particularly brilliant passage on Henry VIII and the Reformation in Dryden's Defence (pp. 117–118), which the poet will recall in his poem. Cf. pp. 406 below. Against the tradition that Dryden wrote only the third part of the Defence, namely that on the Duchess' paper, Ward believes that “there can be little doubt that he wrote all three parts” (p. 219). His reasons, though plausible, have been attacked, successfully, I think, by Earl Miner (“Dryden as Prose Controversialist: His Role in A Defence of the Royal Papers,” in PQ, LXHI, 1964, 412–419). Miner has, however, no candidate for the authorship of the first two parts of the Defence.

¹⁰ Ward is high in his praise of the Defence. It is, he says (p. 219), “a superb example of Dryden's powers as a close reasoner and a skilled debater… . Continually his rigorous exercise of logic in subjecting his opponent's language and intent to analysis reduces Stilhngfleet's answer to nonsense.

¹¹ … Had A Defence been recognized as Dryden's and studied as a document of importance to an understanding of his conversion, much of the uncertainty about his change of religion would have been settled long since.“ We must share Ward's surprise at the fact that Bredvold ”unaccountably makes no mention of it.“ Ward, pp. 219–220.

¹² To avoid overextending this article, I am making no attempt at full coverage of the materials, though I have worked pretty well through the items in Jones's Catalogue. My references are to the major Roman Catholic apologetical writings, particularly those which point to Dryden's familiarity with them, as corroborated by verbal and allusive parallelism. My references to The Hind and the Panther are always to the text as given in G. R. Noyes's edition (revised) of The Poetical Works of Dryden (Cambridge Edition: Cambridge, Mass., 1950). This text has the advantage of numbering the lines continuously throughout the three Parts of the poem, thus facilitating reference.

¹³ My references are always to the 1653 edition of this work.

¹⁴ See also pp. 57–58, 498, et passim, for restatements and elaborations of this theme, e.g., p. 58: “a Church that, as God knowes, it appears now manifestly, hath no surer foundation than the prosperity of the King, and continuance of his civil authority.”

¹⁵ Cf. J. R. Geiselmann, Die milndliche Ûberlieferung (Munich, 1959); George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church (London, 1959); Yves Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, trans. A. N. Woodrow (New York, 1964). See also G. H. Tavard's “Tradition in Early Post-Tridentine Theology,” in Theological Studies, XXIII (1962), 377–405, and later articles in the same publication. Vatican Council II recently grappled with the problem again. Cf. Walter M. Abbott, ed. The Documents of Vatican II (New York, 1966), article “Revelation,” pp. 107–132; also Gregory Eaum, “Theological Reflections on the Second Vatican Council,” in Ecumenical Dialogue at Harvard, ed. Miller and Wright (Harvard Univ, Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 78–79,

¹⁸ Religio Laid, 11. 307–315. Cf. my article, PMLA, LXXX, 192–193.

¹⁷ “The Representing Controversy,” as Thomas Jones calls it (Publications of the Chetham Society, XLVIII, 102), was initiated in England by John Gother's A Papist Mis-represented, and Represented (1685). See p. 413 below.

¹⁸ Cressy's Fanaticism fanatically imputed to the Catholick Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and the Imputation Refuted and Retorted was published in 1672; An Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's book, intituled Idolatry practic'd in the Church of Rome came out in 1674, the year of Cressy's death.

¹⁹ William Rushworth (or Richworth) was a priest who died in 1637, leaving in MS the Dialogues, which were published at Paris in 1640. White was also a priest, who returned to England from Lisbon in 1633, and wrote some 40 controversial works.

²⁰ George H. Tavard, “Scripture and Tradition Among Seventeenth-Century Recusants,” Theological Studies, xxv (1964), 363 ff.

²¹ Closely related to the theology of Rushworth-White is that of John Belson, an English Catholic layman described in the DNB as “a catholic gentleman, much esteemed on account of his knowledge of history and controversial matters.” He wrote a book, published in 1662, called Tradidi vobis: Or the Traditionary Conveyance of Faith Clear'd, in the Rational Way, against the Exceptions of a Learned Opponent. The “learned opponent” was Henry Hammond. Belson attacks Bibliolatry, defends Councils, and has a concept of Tradition embracing both oral and written conveyance of doctrine very much like that of modern Roman Catholic scholars and theologians (cf. G. H. Tavard, Theol. Studies, XXV, 374–380). Did Dryden know this book? It falls in with his emphasis on tradition as the embracing concept. Belson's argument that the Jews did not go astray because they followed oral tradition, since they had the written law of Moses and went astray just the same (p. 190), may be echoed in H. and P., 11. 886–889 (the Hind is speaking): “He could have writ himself, but well foresaw / Th' event would be like that of Moses' law; / Some difference would arise, some doubts remain, / Like those which yet the jarring Jews maintain.”

²² Schisme Dis-Arm'd of the Defensive Weapons, Lent It by Doctor Hammond, and the Bishop of Deny. By S. W. Paris, 1655.

²³ A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion: Being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference, etc. From the pretended Answer by T. C. (My references are to the text in Richard Bentley's edition of Stillingfleet's Works, London, 1710, Vol. rv.) This book connects with an old controversy between Laud and Fisher; it is Stillingfleet's response to Bishop Henchman's request that he answer the Jesuit's account of the controversy. Stillingfleet had established his reputation as a polemicist with his Origines Sacrae (1659), directed against atheists.

23a Cf. also Cressy, Exom., 303 ff. Earl Miner, whose beautiful study, Dryden's Poetry (Bloomington, 1967), appeared after my essay was written, makes much of Cressy's exposition of faith as rational assent (cf. pp. 184 ff.).

²⁴ Cf. the articles crédibilité and foi in the Diet, de théologie catholique.

²⁵ Sergeant returns to the comparison on p. 184. Cf. ?. And P., 11.116–127.

²⁶ Whitby's , or, An Answer to Sure Footing was published at Oxford in 1666. Though Whitby makes his bow to the authority of Revelation, he is fundamentally rationalistic: “The Fundamentals of Christianity (i.e., all doctrines necessary to the Salvation of each person) delivered in the Rule of Faith, must be both evident, and obvious to the eye of Reason” (p. 26). Reason, according to Whitby, penetrates into the very substance of Revelation. Dryden sums it up well (11. 62–63) : “What weight of ancient witness can prevail, / If private reason hold the public scale?”

²⁷ The full title of Tillotson's book is The Rule of Faith: Or An Answer to the Treatise of Mr. J. S. Entitled, Sure-Footing, etc. It was published in 1666. I use a copy of the reissue of 1676. The work was again reprinted in 1688.

²⁸ The controversy over Transubstantiation, and Dryden's concern with it in his poem, merit separate treatment; to enter into these matters here would unduly extend my article. The poet's discussion and defense of this doctrine begin in the well-known autobiographical section (11. 78 ff.) and continue through the First Part where the argument suggests; they are resumed at the beginning of the Second Part. In 11. 91 ff. Dryden answers objections to the ubiquity of Christ's Body in the consecrated elements. In 11. 410 ff., and again in 11. 601 ff., he chides the Anglican Church for its ambiguities in expounding the doctrine of the Real Presence, and in the dialogue of the Second Part the Hind accuses the Panther of having shifted her ground when she allowed the Test to outlaw the Catholic doctrine (11. 610–619). The argument which Dryden condenses in his poem sums up a vast literature of exposition, attack, and defense in which the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been involved since before the Reformation, but which grew particularly violent in England at the time of the passing of the Test Act of 1673 and during the short reign of James II. Cf. Jones, Catalogue, Chs. xxix-xxxi.

²⁹ Sergeant's Letter of Thanks from the Author of SureFooting to his Answerer Mr. J. T. (Paris, 1666) is sarcastic and pedantic in tone. Stillingfleet's Reply to Mr. J. S. (London, 1666) is more sprightly, though no less exasperated.

³⁰ Reason and Religion or The Certain Rule of Faith, Where the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church is asserted, against Atheists, Heathens, levies, and all Sectaries. With a Refutation of Mr. Stillingfleet's many Gross Errours. It was printed at Antwerp, 1672.

³¹ A Rational Account of the Doctrine of Roman Catholicks Concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide in Controversies of Religion. Reflecting on the later Writings of Protestants, particularly of Archbishop Lawd and Doctor Stillingfleet, on this Subject. By R. Holden. The title page describes this as the “second edition.” No copies of the first, which was dated 1667, are extant. Anthony Wood (Athen. Oxon., London, 1817, iii, 1159) says that the first two discourses were printed at London in 1666, “but before they could appear in public, they were burnt in the grand conflagration … The other two discourses were published at London in 1667, … and there again, all together, with additions and some alterations, in 1673.” “R. Holden” seems to be a composition using the initials of the second and third syllables of Woodhead's Christian name.

³² See p. 412 below. Woodhead had already attacked Protestant individualism in a pamphlet, Dr. Stillingfleets Principles, Giving an A ccount of the Faith of Protestants, Considered by N. O., Paris, 1671.

³³ See p. 413 below.

³⁴ Cf. A. E. Housman's edition, M. Annaci Lucani Belli Civilis Libri Decern (Oxonii, 1950). Thomas May, whose English translation of Lucan's poem was popular in the 17th century, translates 11. 5–8 of Bk. I as follows: “Where arm'd to impious war, / The strength of all the shaken world from far / Is met; known Ensigns Ensigns do defie, / Piles against Piles, ‘gainst Eagles Eagles Aie.” (I quote from the 4th ed., London, 1650.) ‘!

³⁵ All three books are mentioned in the full title.

³⁶ Jones (see the note to item 73 of the Catalogue) assigns the translation to Joseph Johnston, O.S.B., but notes that the Bodleian Catalogue attributes the work to Dryden.

³⁷ The first edition of Bossuet's Exposition appeared in 1671, but the work was much revised in later editions. The English trans, is that of the 5th.

³⁸ “It was the publishing of this book that made the king my enemy,” says Wake in his MS Autobiography (cited by N. Sykes, William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, 2 vols., Cambridge, Eng., 1957, I, 32). Sykes describes Bossuet‘s ecumenical views and activities, esp. with respect to the English Church (From Sheldon to Seeker, Cambridge, Eng., 1959, pp. 105 ff.). Bossuet particularly admired George Bull‘s Defensio Fidei Nicenae (1685), recommending it for use in French seminaries. Wake was interested in sounding out possibilities of union with the Gallican Church. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes may have helped to change his mind.

³⁹ The best retort to Wake's book was A Vindication of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church (1686), probably by Joseph Johnston. Wake's answer, A Defense of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England (1686), concludes with a table of parallel passages arranged side by side to show alleged discrepancies between older Roman Catholic theologians and the “palliations” of Bossuet and Johnston.

⁴⁰ Jones, Catalogue (see ii. 17 above).

⁴¹ This phrase of Gother's was repeated by Sherlock in his reply to the priest's book, A Papist Not Misrepresented by Protestants (London, 1686), p. 6.

⁴² The History of England, iii, 766, n. 1.

⁴³ A. Beljame, Le Public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre au dix-huitième siècle (Paris, 1881), pp. 193–194.

⁴⁴ See Stillingfleet, Works, IV, 370 ff.; Wiffiam Cave, Dissertation Concerning the Government of the Ancient Church, London, 1683; Discourse Concerning the Unity of the Catholic Church, London, 1685.

⁴⁵ It was published in 1686, “By Her Majesties Command,” as A Sermon of St. Peter, Preach'd before IIer Majesty … on the Twenty-ninth of June, 1686, Being St. Peter and St. Paul's Day. The text was Matt, xvi.18. According to Jones, this sermon touched off the series of tracts he lists in Ch. xix of his Catalogue (“Of the discourses of St. Peter and the pope's supremacy”).

⁴⁶ A Discourse Concerning a Judge of Controversies in Matters of Religion. Being an A nswer to Some Papers Asserting the Necessity of such a Judge.

⁴⁷ Bellarmine was the chief proponent of the marks of the Church. Cf. his De Controversiis, 1. iv: “De Notis Ecclesiae” (ed. Napoli, 1857, ii, 106–140). In 1687 there appeared an anonymous Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church, With Some Reflections on Cardinal Bellarmine's Notes, which was licensed on 6 Apr. 1687, just before The Hind and the Panther was licensed. There were also individual attacks on each of Bellarmine's fifteen notes. See Jones, Catalogue, Ch. xxxvi, for a list of these writings.

⁴⁸ See Charles F. Mullett, “A Case of Allegiance: William Sherlock and the Revolution of 1688,” HLQ, x (1946), 83–103.

⁴⁹ See Jones's Catalogue, Chs. vii-x.

⁵⁰ See Hugh Macdonald, John Dryden: A Bibliography of Early Editions and of Drydeniana (Oxford, 1939), pp. 253–263.

⁵¹ The Intellectual Milieu of John Dryden, p. 128.