A Reply to the Catholic Gentlemans Answer, Appendix
An Account of H. T. his APPENDIX TO HIS MANUAL of CONTROVERSIES, CONCERNING The Abbot of Bangor's Anſwer to Auguſtine.
Having concluded the foregoing Reply to the Catholick Gentleman, I received news of a Manual of Controverſies in the preſſe, wherein I was ſaid to be particularly concerned, and having ſoon gotten a ſight of it, I found that the matter was of no greater bulk or weight, than might receive an account in few words, & thoſe moſt proper to be here annext, by way of Appendix:
At the folding up of that Manual, the Author of it is pleaſed to take notice of (no more than) one teſtimonie, which I had cited out of Sir Henry Spelman's Anglicane Councels, containing an Anſwer of the Abbot of Bangor to Auguſtine the Monk, when he demanded of the Britains an acknowledgment of ſubmiſſion to the Biſhop of Rome.
The paſſage is to be ſeen at large, in Welſh, Engliſh, and Latine, in that tome of the Councels, p. 108. and is recited in the Treatiſe of Schiſme, p. 111. and the ſumme of it is, that he and the reſt of the Britiſh Church were under the government of the Archbiſhop of Caerleon upon Vske, and owed no obedience (or reſpect, ſave that of fraternal charity) to the Pope of Rome.
This Anſwer of that Abbot, the Authour hath thought good to cenſure (by way of Appendix to the Article concerning the Pope's Supremacy) 1. As unapt to conclude againſt the Romaniſt's pretenſions concerning the Papal power over the whole Church. 2. As unworthily alledged by perſons of any ordinary judgment or erudition. 3. As that which may eaſily be convicted to be a ſimple impoſture, and the waies of demonſtrating it clearly, promiſed in that inſuing diſcourſe.
What thoſe waies are, and how farre ſhort of the force or evidence of demonſtration, I ſhall, with the Reader's good leave, examine anon, after I have premiſed this one conſideration, That the onelyonly thing, which is by us conteſted, and concluded againſt the Romanist from this teſtimonie, is a matter of fact of known truth, and ſuch as the Romaniſts themſelves (yea and this Authour H. T. who hath thought ſit to arraign this teſtimonie) acknowledge to be ſuch, and therefore, as in caſe this one teſtimonie ſhould be demonſtrated to be a ſimple impoſture, we can very unconcernedly and eaſily part with it, ſtanding in no manner of need of this auxiliarie, ſo it is a little ſtrange that this Authour ſhould think it worth his ſolemn pains, to wreſt it out of our hands, and dedicate this whole Appendix to that one work, when if he were ſucceſsfull to his wiſh; his acquiſitions hereby, and proportionably our loſſes, muſt be ſo unconſiderable.
That which we conclude from hence againſt the Romaniſt is no more but this, that the Britains, particularly thoſe of Bangor, denied to yeild obedience to the Pope upon Auguſtine's demand of it. And for this we have the notoriouſneſs of the fact, as it is ſet down by the Authours which are of credit, and are vouched in this matter by the Romaniſt, particularly by Bede, in the ſecond Book of his Eccleſiaſtick Hiſtorie, c. 2. where the whole ſtory may be read at large, and out of which I ſhall collect, and, in paſſing, clear theſe few things.
First, that Auguſtine and the Britiſh Biſhops met in Councel at Auguſtine's Oake in Worceſterſhire; This paſſage lyes very corruptly in the Latine Bede, in loco ubi uſque hodie linguâ Anglorum Augiſtinuzat, id eſt, robur Auguſtini in confinio Vectiorum & Occidentalium Saxonum appellatur. Three corruptions I ſuppoſe there will ſoon appear to be in theſe words, which I ſhall briefly remove for the clearing of our entrance, and diſabuſing the Authour of this Manual in one of them.
The firſt, and chief of them is, that Auguſtinuzat is a foreign, miſtaken for Auguſtines-ac, i. e. Auguſtines oake, whether that were the name of a Tree, or a Village, moſt probably the former, after the manner of that Councel, which was held againſt S. Chryſoſtome, called ordinarily the Synod ad quercum, at, or under the Oake.
Secondly, that [ubi] ſhould be read [qui] which is an eaſie miſtake, and ſo the conſtruction will be facile, which now is rough, in loco qui uſque hodie-Auguſtines-ac appellatur, in the place which even to this day is called Auguſtine's-ac, and accordingly the Saxon reads on foreign ac, in the place ſtill named Auguſtine's Oake.
Thirdly, that Vectiorum (which the Author of this Appendix renders Vectians, and interprets to be the Iſle of Wight, quite againſt all probable conjecture, for how can it be believ'd that the Britains ſhould give him a meeting ſo farre from the place of their own preſent habitation?) ſhould be Wicciorum (ſo*l. 3. p. 325. Huntington reads it, and the Saxon Bede Hpicna) meaning Worceſterſhire by that ſtyle, and accordingly this Synod is by Authors oft called Wigornienſis Synodus, the Worceſterſhire Synod; and among the Britiſh Biſhops, who are recorded to be preſent at the ſecond Seſſion, Wiccenſis, the Biſhop of Worceſter is one. In what part of that County it was that that Synod convened, I ſee it is uncertain among our later Writers, and ſo there may be place for conjecture, Sir Henry Spelman from the Map propoſeth Auſtric, as a probable contraction from Auſtinſric, Auguſtini ditio, as that which may give ſome light in a doubtfull matter, but upon inquiry I hear that that village is called Aufric or Alfric, not Auſtric, and therefore I ſhall take confidence to mention, what ſeems to me farre more probable, that it was in the pariſh of Merton, which hath the agnomen of Vſſentree, or Oſſentree, in old rolls, Merton juxta Oſſentree, Merton cloſe by Oſſentree, an eaſie variation from, and contraction of Auſtin tree, and is three miles from Worceſter, neer the rode to Droitwich, where the hill-Church is Auguſtine's Church.
Secondly, that the buſineſſe of this convention, deſigned to draw the Britiſh to obedience to Augustine & the See of Rome, began with a propoſition onelyonly of conformity in the obſervation of Eaſter, in the Ceremonies of Baptiſme &c. But this in vain; for, ſaith Bede, after a long disputation they would give no aſſent to the intreaties, and exhortations and chidings of Auguſtine, but preferred their own tradition before all the Churches through the world, which accorded with Rome in the particular of Eaſter, &c.
Thirdly, that for the convincing of them, Auguſtine challenged them to doe miracles, and by prayer to God cured a blinde man, and was much cried up for ſo doing, the Britiſh ſtill adhering to their way, and anſwering him, that abſque conſenſu & licentiâ ſuorum, without conſent and licence of their whether Rulers of Church, or whatſoever other ſuperiors alſo (their Metropolitan, I ſuppoſe, which cannot be thought to have been with them at this, being certainly none of the ſeven Biſhops, which are affirmed to have been preſent at the later convention) they could not forſake their antient cuſtomes.
Fourthly, that upon propoſall, it was agreed that they ſhould have a ſecond meeting, at which were preſent ſeven Britiſh Biſhops (which other Writers expreſſe to have been the Biſhop of Hereford, Landaff, Bangor, S. Aſſaph, Worceſter, Paternenſis, Morganenſis) and many other learned men, eſpecially de nobiliſſimo eorum Monaſterio, quod vocatur lingua Anglorum Bancornaburg, cui tempore illo Dinooth Abbas praefuiſſe narratur, of the famous Monaſterie of Bangor, of which Dinooth was Abbot at that time.
Fifthly, that before they went to this Meeting, they were adviſed by a religious perſon, whoſe directions they asked, to obſerve diligently the behaviour of Auguſtine, when they came, whether he were meek and lowly in heart, a mark by which they might know whether he had taken Chriſt's yoke upon him, and conſequently whether it were the yoke of Chriſt, which he now deſired to impoſe upon them, and upon Auguſtine's fitting ſtill upon his ſtool or ſeat, and never riſing up with any civility or humility, at their approach, they were ſo displeaſed, ſaith Bede, that they contradicted all the propoſals that he made to them.
Sixthly, that upon his making three Propoſitions to them, concerning Eaſter, Baptiſme, and preaching to the Engliſh, and promiſing to bear with them in all other differences, (of which ſort, ſaid he, there were many wherein their practice was contrary conſuetudini noſtrae, imò Vniverſalis Eccleſiae, to the cuſtome of the Roman, yea the Vniverſal Church) they anſwered, nihil horum ſe facturos, nec illum pro Archiepiſcopo habituros, that they would not comply with him in any of them, nor acknowledge him for their Archbiſhop; Upon which follows that rough ſanguinarie anſwer of Augustine's, quod ſi pacem cum fratribus accipere nollent, bellum ab hoſtibus forent accepturi, that if they would not accept of peace with brethren, they ſhould have warre from enemies, and, as it follows in very plain language, per Anglorum manu… ultienem mortis eſſent paſſuri, the hands of the Engliſh ſhould act a bloody revenge upon them.
Which, it ſeems, ſoon after followed, and fell in an eminent manner on the Monks of Bangor, of which order there were at that time above two thouſand, who lived all by the labour of their own hands. For, ſaith he, King Edilfred of Northumberland, coming with a great Army to C…erleon, made his firſt onſet on their Prieſts, who were aſſembled by themſelves to faſt and pray for their brethren, (as Moſes holding up his hands in prayer, whileſt Joſua held up his in ſighting) and upon no other provocation (taken notice of by the Hiſtorian) but this, that they fought againſt him with their prayers (contra nos pugnant qui adverſus no… in preca…i…s ibus proſequuntur) he firſt ſet upon them, killed 1…00 of them, and then deſtroyed the whole Army. Sicque compie…um eſt praeſagium ſancti Pontificis Auguſtini, and ſo the preſage of the holy Biſhop St. Auguſtine was fulfi…led upon them.
Theſe particulars of the ſtory I have thus puctually ſet down in obedience to the rebuke of this Author, who p. 412. chargeth it upon Sir Hen: Spelman, and thoſe others that borrow out of him, as a want of wilingneſs to ſee the truth, & of fidelity to com…nicate it to others, that they have choſen to reflect on that teſtimonie (which he is pleaſed to call upſtart, and) which appeared not till within theſe 15 years, and not upon that true antiquity, which having indured the ſhock of almoſt a 1000 years. Sir Henry had a little before tranſcribed out of Bede, wherein, ſaith he, every one may read, firſt that miracle in giving ſight to the blinde man, then that divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Auguſtine, p. 413.which (in his opinion) more than ſufficiently prove, that S. Auguſtine, ſent by the Pope, came in the name of God, from a lawfull authority, and that his demands of conformity to the Church of Rome in the points ſpecified were good, and to be yeilded to by the Britains.
In this matter I might now fitly inlarge, and examine the force of this two-fold argument, that of the miraculous cure, and that of the predicted vengeance, and offer many things to conſideration concerning each head.
For the former, 1. the no great credit that hath been given to the relations of Bede on this head of miracles (of which his Story is ſo richly furniſhed) together with the great deceit that ſuch pretenſions have been experimented to ſubject men to: Secondly, the confeſſion of Bede, that the Britaines were*Quod cum adverſarii, inviti licèt, concederent. unwilling to yeild to this tryall of their cauſe, and accordingly when he ſaith that the†Cum oblatus Britonis̄ ſacerdotibus nil curationis horum miniſterio cepit. blinde man being offered to the Prieſts of the Britaines, he received no cure or benefit by them, he doth not ſo much as pretend that the Britaines attempted to doe the miracle, and failed in it, but leaves us to reſolve that they wholly waved this tryall: Thirdly, that if the miracle were granted to be a true miracle, and a teſtimony of Gods aſſerting the doctrines then conteſted between them, yet this would not be any concludent teſtimonie for the Pope's Supremacy, but onelyonly for thoſe things which were then the matter of the queſtion, the time of the obſervation of Eaſter, the rites of Baptiſme, accuſtomed in the Roman Church, and at the moſt ſome ſuch like traditions, wherein the Britiſh cuſtome varied from that of Rome, for this was the forme of the propoſed tryall, quae ſequenda traditio quibus ſit viis ad ingreſſum regni illius properandum, what tradition was to be followed (in the celebration of Eaſter, that which the Britains had received and retained from their firſt converſion, imputed to an Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon, Simon Zelotes or Joſeph of Arimathea, or that which the Romans deduced from S. Peter) by what waies they were to haſten to entrance into that Kingdome (referring, I ſuppoſe, to the rites of baptiſme, the ſecond head of debate between them) And in both theſe, (as alſo in refuſing to joyn with Auguſtine in the common work of preaching to the Gentiles) it may eaſily be granted by us, that the truth was on the Romaniſts ſide, and not on the Britains, without ye…lding a ſupremacie of the Church of Rome over the Britiſh Churches. Fourthly, that the Britains by Bede's confeſſion, acknowledged themſelves convinced by that miracle, that the way of righteouſneſs which Auguſtine preached, was the true way, yet added, that they could not renounce their antient cuſtomes without the conſent and licence of their own (ſuperiors) which evidently confines aud determines the miracle and all the ſuppoſed virtue thereof to the confirming the Traditions which Auguſtine delivered, without farther extending it to the aſſerting the Papal power (to which the Abbot of Bangor's anſwer was particularly confronted) for had they once acknowledged themſelves convinced of that, there had been no place left for the licentia ſuorum, no need of the conſent or licence of any other ſuperiors, which yet they reſolutely adhere to. Laſtly, that at their ſecond meeting the Britains deemed Auguſtine's pride a more valid convincing argument, that the yoke which he deſigned to impoſe on them was not the yoke of Chriſt, than the ſuppoſed miracle, that it was.
And for the latter, that of the ſlaughter, firſt*Fertur minitans praedixiſſe. Bede, Terruit eos vaticinio futurae ſuper eos calamitatis. Sigebert. threatned and then fulfilled upon them, 1. If that were indeed a miracle, it was not of the complexion, which is generally obſerved in Chriſt's miracles, uſed for the working of faith, but proportionable to the Spirit of the Boanerges, which would have the fire from heaven called down upon the Samaritans, and were anſwered by Chriſt that this was not agreeable to the Spirit of the Gospel; And if the example of S. Peter on Ananias and Sapphyra, or of S. Paul on Elymas be made uſe of as a precedent for this ſeverity, yet ſure the anſwer of Pope Gregory to Auguſtine at that time, ſuppoſing different Churches to enjoy different cuſtomes, and not impoſing the Roman upon all, might have directed him to greater moderation. See Bed: l. 1. c. 27. in his anſwer to the third Interrogation. Secondly, it is no very great miracle, that a grand Army falling firſt upon unarmed Monks, ſhould obtain the victory againſt them, and afterward againſt all other their oppoſers; nor conſequently is it any whit ſtrange that Auguſtine, that was ſo provoked, and meant to uſe this bloody revengefull courſe, ſhould thus threaten what he then deſigned to ſee performed, for that is the full meaning of his foretelling it.
It is true indeed that either Bede, or ſome Interpolator, that copied out the original Latine of that Hiſtorie, hath thought good to inſert ſome words in the end of that ſtory, l. 2. c. 2. in fine, (quamvis ipſo jam multo ante tempore ad coeleſtia regna ſublato) which might delude men into a perſwaſion, that this bloody act was a long time after Augustine's death; But for this, Firſt, it is obſervable that King Alfred's Saxon tranſlation or paraphraſe of Bede, wholly omits that parentheſis, and reads it onelyonly thus, foreign B. A foreign, &c. and ſo was fulfilled the prediction of S. Auguſtine, that they ſhould feel the revenge of temporal deſtruction. Secondly, that the ſeries of the ſtory in Bede gives juſt prejudice to that parentheſis, for this of the ſlaughter of the Britans being ſet down in the end of that ſecond Chap: the third begins with Auguſtine's ordaining two Biſhops, Mellitus and Juſtus, which ſure was not after his death, and as the Saxon paraphraſe of King Alfred begins that Chapter with this form of reference to the former paſſage, foreign—It was after this—which plainly defines Auguſtine to have ſurvived that bloody fact, ſo the Latine Bede, which ſets down the time of Auguſtine's ordaining thoſe two Biſhops, Anno Dominicae incarnationis ſexcentefimo quarto, In the year 604, doth yet more incline us to ſuſpect that Parentheſis, for though Bede, who ſets down the month and day of Auguſtine's death, ſets not down the year of it, but leaves it in a latitude to be between the year 596 in which he came to England, and the year 613. (or, as the Saxon reads 616.) in which King Ethelbert died, yet others commonly affirm that he continued Biſhop 15 or 16 years, and ſo died about 612 or 13. whereas Chronologers affirm the ſlaughter of the Monks of Bangor &c. to have been in the year 603, and ſo the year immediately precedent to Auguſtine's ordaining thoſe two Biſhops. Thirdly, when in the relation of this ſlaughter, the Latine Bede begins Siquidem, poſthaec ipſe, de quo diximus, Rex Anglorum—For after this, i. e. after Auguſtine's threatning deſtruction to the Britiſh, the forenamed King of the Angles gathered an Army— the Saxon paraphraſe reads, foreign, and ſoon rath, i. e. very ſoon after this, which again perſwades that it was before Auguſtine's death, at leaſt that the jam multo ante in the Parentheſis (that Auguſtine died long before) could have no truth in it. Laſtly, as ſome Writers of theſe dark times have made a ſhift to affirm with the Latine Bede that Auguſtine was firſt dead, ſo it is known alſo that others charge it on him, that he was not onelyonly the inciter to it, but that he met the Kings when they were ready for the fight, and was preſent with them; And Trivet in his French Chronicle, that ſaith it was done after Auguſtine's death, yet adds that Ethelbert King of Kent; who ſtirred up Ethelfred King of Northumberland and his Saxons againſt the Britans, and by name againſt Dinoth Abbot of Bangor forementioned, was highly displeaſed and inflamed, that he had despiſed Auguſtine. All which being conſidered, it is certain, that this was no very Chriſtian action, whether in Auguſtine or in Ethelbert, and the threats of the one, and performances of the other, as they bear an exact proportion, ſo are they equally argumentative, not for, but againſt that cauſe, which was willing thus unchriſtianly to ſupport it ſelf.
Thirdly, if the ſlaughter of theſe poor Monks ſhall yet be thought a ſolid probation, as an act of divine vengeance upon them (juſt ſuch as the falling of the towre of Siloe was, from which none but a Jew, or Turke, or the Barbarians, Act. 28. or thoſe that make prosperity the ſpeciall mark of the true Church, will think fit to conclude any thing) there is one part of the ſtory yet behinde, which will refute and retort that argument, for when Edilfrid had uſed them ſo bloodily, and in the heat of his rage and victory proceeded to deſtroy the remainder of thoſe Monks, and their Monaſterie together, the avengers of blood met him, three Britiſh Commanders, with their forces, routed his Army, killed ten thouſand and ſixty of them, wounded the king, and put him and the remainder of his Army to flight, which certainly is an argument of as much validity to inferre that God maintained the cauſe of thoſe innocent Monks againſt the Saxons and Auguſtine, as the former was argumentative on their ſide againſt the Britiſh.
But it is not needfull, that I inſiſt on either of theſe, the one thing that from this view of the ſtory in Bede was to be concluded, is onelyonly this, that upon the relations, as in him they lie, and are by this Author H. T. vouched againſt us, there can be no doubt of our Concluſion, that the Abbot and Monks of Bangor oppoſed Auguſtine, yeilded him no obedience, referred themſelves onelyonly to their own Governours, without any acknowledgment of obedience to the Pope; And this is generally the reſult of other Authors narrations of this matter.
So*…in Dinoth. Balaeus, ſpeaking of that convention, Dinotus omnium primu… graviter & docte de non approbandà apud eos Romanorum authoritate disputabat, Dinoth in the firſt place gravely and learnedly diſputed againſt the Authority of the Biſhops of Rome among them, adding, Fortiter praeterea tuebatur Menevenſis Archiepiſcopi in Eccleſiarum ſuarum rebus ratam juriſdictionem, that he moreover ſtrongly and couragiouſly defended the validity of the juriſdiction of the Archbiſhop of S. Davids (the ſame that in the Abbots anſwer is called the Biſhop of Caerleon) in the affairs of his own churches.
So Geffrey of Monmouth, Edelbertus Rex Kantiorum, ut vidit Britones dedignantes ſubjectionem Auguſtino facere, Northumbrorum & cateros Saxonum regulos inſtimulavit, ut collecto grandi exercitu in civitatem Bangor Abbatem Dinoth & caeteros clericos, qui eos ſpreverunt, perditum irent. King Ethelbert ſeeing the Britains diſdain to yeild their ſubjection to Auguſtine, ſtirred up the King of Northumberland and other Saxon Kings to gather a great army againſt the city Bangor, to deſtory Dinoth the Abbot and the other Clerks of that Monaſterie, who had ſcorned Auguſtine and the Saxons.
So Sigebert in Anno 602. Auguſtinus—habita Synodo cum Britonum & Scotorum Epiſcopis, quâ ſacerdotes & Monachos invenit adverſarios aequitatis— Auguſtine had a meeting with the Britiſh and Scotiſh Biſhops, and there found an oppoſition from the Prieſts and Monks, and terrified them by prediction of a calamity that ſhould fall on them. Other evidences to the ſame purpoſe are ſet down in the Collection of the Anglicane Councels, and Mr. Whelock's Notes on his edition of the Saxon Bede, p. 115. if there could now remain any question of it.
And that this was diſcerned by the Author of this Appendix, if it had been for his Intereſt to have taken notice of it, is evident by his mention of the miracle and divine vengeance, as of proofs that Auguſtine was in the right againſt theſe refuſers, who yet continued, ſaith he ſtill refractory to his propoſals. And this was all I concluded from the Abbot's anſwer, and this ſtands firm in this Romaniſt's own confeſſion, though the words of the Abbot's anſwer had not been preſerved to us.
And therefore being now wholly unconcerned in the validity of this teſtimony, and ſo ſecured from all danger of being bribed by intereſts to judge more favourably of it than the matter requires, I ſhall now proceed calmly to conſider, whether there be that clearneſs and evidence in this Author's arguments for the invalidating this teſtimony, which he aſſures us we ſhall finde in them.
His firſt argument is negative from the [not leaſt ſcrap of Antiquity ſo much as pretended to prove that the Cambrian (i. e. Welch) lines cited, were the Abbot of Bangor's anſwer to Auguſtine upon the occaſion ſpecified, p. 405.nor that the renouned Dinoth was that Abbot, nor that the old Manuſer: whence Sir Henry Spel: extracts the teſtimony, was copied out of any more antient.
What other proof from antiquity ſhould be expected from Sir Henry Spelman to give authority to theſe lines, than what readily offers it ſelf in this matter, I doe not underſtand; That the Britiſh, particularly thoſe of Bangor, and yet more peculiarly Dinoth the famous Abbot of that Monaſterie, diſputed againſt Auguſtine's pretenſions for the authority of the Biſhop of Rome, and aſſerted their own ſubjection to their Metropolitane, hath already appeared to be the affirmation of thoſe, who are moſt competent witneſſes of it, and the Manuſcript paſſage in Welch and Engliſh, which Sir H. Spel: had tranſcribed from Mr. Moſton's Copie (and directs the Reader to Sir Robert Cotton's Library to ſatisfie himſelf in that matter) is directly agreeable to this for the matter of it, and ſo gave that very judicious Knight juſt reaſon both to ſet ſome value on it himſelf, and to communicate it to others, as that which might gratifie their curioſity, and approve it ſelf by its own light to any judicious Reader, to be, if not the very words of that Abbot's anſwer, yet the ſenſe and ſubſtance of it, and whether of theſe it ſhould be judged to be, it matters not.
Had the contents of this Teſtimony been any way contrary to other undoubted records of thoſe times, or indeed any diſparate new relation, that had not formerly been taken notice of, and was now to owe the whole credit and ſupport to this Teſtimonie, ſome reaſon there might have been for an Ariſtarchus to proceed with more caution than here was uſed, and to yeild nothing to bare groundleſſe conjectures (and the Romaniſt hath as much reaſon as any man to lay this to heart, to act with this caution in other Teſtimonies) but when the matter is agreed on among the Antients, and an old record offers it ſelf to our view, in perfect concord with that which we had formerly all reaſon to believe, and onelyonly affirms that more legibly and diſtinctly, which was in ſubſtance before, but not ſo punctually delivered to us, I cannot think the ſevereſt Critick, ſuppoſing him unconcerned and impartial, without any hypotheſis of his own to be defended or tended by him, would have any averſion or diſlike to a teſtimony thus produced, though for ſome circumſtances of it, ſuch as are here mentioned, the producer have nothing of authority to back his own conjectures.
This one thing I am ſure is moſt unjuſt, not to give credit to a Manuſcript, that it is what it pretends to be, unleſſe I have ſome expreſſe affirmation of Antiquity concerning that particular Manuſcript; ſhould ſuch rules of ſeverity be now impoſed on the preſſe, the Vatican muſt never bring forth more rarities, the wealth of all the Archives in the world muſt lie dead, like a Miſer's treaſure, no one volume being able to teſtifie for the veracity of its neighbour, or if it were, it ſelf muſt alſo bring its voucher along with it, and ſo on in infinitum, or elſe it would not be foreign a competent teſtification in this matter, and when it is remembred, that all, which is now made publick by the help of Printing, lay once in ſingle Manuſcripts, and thoſe multipliable onelyonly by tranſcribing, and neither the originals nor Copies any other way teſtified to be what they pretended to be, than as theſe Cambrian lines are delivered to us by Sir Henry, I hope this will be deemed a competent proof, that this firſt argument is not ſo clearly demonſtrative as was promiſed.
Another branch there is of this firſt argument, in theſe words,p. 405. And certainly if his Manuſcript be no elder than the interlined Engliſh, he hath groſsly wronged himſelf and his Reader, by honouring it with the ſtyle of Antient: For, as every one ſees, the Engliſh is purely modern, and cannot be ſo old by many years as Henry the Eighth…s caſhiering the Pope's authority, and arrogating the ſupremacy in Eccleſiaſticall matters to himſelf, for maintenance whereof it is alledged, and was certainly forged.
To this I anſwer briefly, that it is not pretended by Sir Henry, that the Engliſh is as antient as the times of Dinoth, no nor the Welch neither, but that thoſe two Languages were made uſe of by ſome, whoſe ages he pretends not to know, to conveigh to us intelligibly the anſwer of that Abbot, in what language ſoever it were delivered by him; And if it ſhall now be granted to this Author, that the Engliſh idiome evidenceth it to be written within theſe laſt 100 years, this can be no prejudice or ground of ſuſpition, much leſſe a proof of forgery againſt this Manuſcript, as long as the Welch is allowed to be more antient, to which the Engliſh may upon a latter tranſcribing have been annext, as fitly as old Greek MSS. are daily printed with the Latine tranſlations of a later date, in the ſame or ſeveral pages.
His ſecond argument is deduced from the Cambrian lines, in which he pretends to diſcover many un-Cambrian mixtures of Engliſh words, p. 406, 7, 8.helpio and gleimio, for help and claim, want of Orthographie, and the like; To which being utterly unskilfull in the Welch language, I acknowledge my ſelf incompetent to give any very particular reply, yet ſhall give my reaſon, why I cannot think that this ſecond argument of his is any more demonſtrative againſt the validity of the teſtimony, than the former; For 1. ſuppoſing this Copie of Mr. Moſton… s to be a tranſcript, not the original (as it is evident S. H. Spelman ſuppoſeth) what difficulty is there to imagine, that that Copie was tranſcribed by one unskilful in the Orthographie of that language, eſpecially when it is known, how ordinary this is to be found, not only among the vulgar, but among learned Church-men of that nation, who are fain by ſtudy to acquire skill of reading before they can officiate in that language. Secondly, I ſhall readily grant, or, if he pleaſe, yeild to the force of his arguments, that the Welch lines are not the words, or language wherein Dinoth delivered his anſwer, but (as this Gentleman after contends) that Dinoth, a writer of Latine Books, being to ſpeak to Auguſtine, that underſtood not the Britiſh language, gave his anſwer in Latine; What hinders now, but that this Latine anſwer being conſerved among the Britans, might in later times (before Henry the eight) in any age to which the idiome of the Welch lines ſhall direct a Critick in that language to affix them, be tranſlated into imperfect (I mean more modern) yet intelligible Welch, either by a native of that Countrey, or by any other, who had acquired ſo much of that language, as was ſufficient for no weightier an enterpriſe? I diſcern not what diſadvantage I can receive by this conceſſion, and then ſure there will be ſmall difficulty in vindicating Sir Henry's integrity, if this ſhall be ſuppoſed; For he no where pretends, that the Cambrian lines, in the form here preſented, were the language, or words of the anſwer of Dinoth, but that the matter of his anſwer, in what language ſoever delivered by him, is communicated to us by that MS. And that it was not, here is no word of ſo much as probable argument, much leſſe of clear demonſtration tenderd by the Author of this Appendix.
Laſtly, for the two words which occaſioned his charge of the Engliſh mixtures, I am, by thoſe which have skill in the language, enabled to return him ſome anſwer, that the word help, from whence is the infinitive helpio or helpu, is found uſed by Tudor Aled, who wrote an: 1490. and by Lluellyn, who is thought to be more antient, and that gleimio, or cleimio is by the Latine and Welch Dictionary ſet down in the word vendico, in the firſt place, (and after that holi) as the moſt proper Welch word for it, not borrowed from the Engliſh; From whence as I ſhall not conclude, that theſe Welch lines, were the original of Dinoth's anſwer (that were to retract my former conceſſion) ſo I may ſafely aſſume, that theſe two words (his onelyonly inſtances of Engliſh mixtures) doe no way demonſtrate this Welch tranſlation to be later than Henry the Eight's caſhiering the Pope's authority (as of the Engliſh it was granted) nor conſequently leave it under ſuſpition of being forged by any Proteſtant.
His third argument is of more ſeeming force, taken from the mention of this Abbot's ſubjection to the Biſhop of Caerleon upon Vſke, p. 409.in which he findes two abſurdities, 1. ſaith he, Bangor is very neer, if not in the Dioceſe of …han Elwy, now commonly called S. Aſſaph, 2. all Hiſtories teſtifie that the Archiepiſcopal Seat was removed from Caerleon to S. David's in King Arthur's time, who died about the year 544. i. e. 50 years before Auguſtine's firſt entrance into Britain.
To theſe two branches of probation, certainly the anſwer is very obvious to the firſt, that acknowledging and ſuppoſing that the Monasterie of Banchor, ſituate in Flintſhire, though within the confines of Cheſtſhire, was under the dioceſan Biſhop either of S. Aſaph, or of Cheſter the Epiſcopal See of Bangor lying in the County of Caernarven) yet this can be of no manner of force againſt this teſtimony, for he that was under the Biſhop of S. Aſaph, as his immediate ſuperior, or dioceſan, may yet be under the Biſhop of Caerleon, as his Metropolitan, as he that is under the Biſhop of Rocheſter in one reſpect, is under the Biſhop of Canterbury in another. And ſo that is a full anſwer to his firſt difficulty.
For the ſecond, it is acknowledged that before this time of Dinoth's anſwer to Auguſtine, the Archiepiſcopal See had been by authority of Synod removed firſt from Caerleon to Landaffe by Dubritius, Anno 512. and ſo it is affirmed by Sir Hen: Spelman in his Apparat: p. 25. (where by the way lin: 5. the Printer hath miſtaken ad Meneviam for ad Landaviam) and in like manner by his ſucceſſor S. David, Anno 516. by licence from King Arthur, from Landaff to Menevia, which from that eminent Biſhop, under whom that change was made, was after called S. Davids. But this removal of the Metropolitical See from one city to another was not of ſuch weight or conſideration, but that the Metropolitical dignity, having been ſo long fixt at Caerleon, might ſtill retain that title after the tranſlation.
Beſides, the Abbot of Bangor making anſwer to Auguſtine… s claim, which was founded in ſome old right, which he pretended the Pope to have over all Churches, it was moſt proper to conteſt this by former practice, not onelyonly how it ſtood at that preſent, but eſpecially how it had been foreign, of old, or from the beginning, by cuſtome immemorial, and herein not to conſider ſuch immaterial changes, as were the removing of the Primate's See from one city to another, but to look on it, as it had alwaies layn, in oppoſition to all forreign juriſdiction: And it being certain that Caerleon was antiently this Prime See, nothing was more agreeable to this conteſt, as it is ſuppoſed to be managed by that Abbot, than thus to referre to the foreign (as the Councels of Nice, and Antioch, and Chalcedon, and Epheſus had done, in the like controverſies) to tell Auguſtine that the Britiſh Chriſtians had alwaies, from their firſt plantation, been under a Britiſh Primate, and to call the Britiſh Primate by that title, which had moſt antiently belonged to him, i. e. Biſhop of Caerleon, and not by the later of Landaffe, or the yet later of S. Davids.
What this Author here objects againſt the former of theſe anſwers, ſaying, 1. That this is not proved. And 1. that it implies a contradiction to ſay the See was tranſlated, and the former title ſtill retained, Tranſlation importing the taking a new, and deſertion of the old title,] is no way applicable to this ſecond anſwer (which conſequently remains in full force) and therefore I need not farther attend to it; And in relation to the former anſwer, It is farre from the promiſed clearneſſe of demonſtration.
For as to the firſt part of it, the thing may be true, though it be not proved▪ the contrary muſt be proved by him that promiſeth clear or demonſtrative confutations: And for the ſecond, it muſt be founded in ſome new notion of Contradiction, which my Logick hath not acquainted me with, for ſure he that ſaith the See was tranſlated, and the former title retained, doth neither ſay that the See was tranſlated and not tranſlated (which is the only form of a Logical contradiction) nor that the former title was retained and not retained; Nor conſequently can I diſcern the leaſt inconvenience, much leſſe contradiction, either direct, or by way of implication, that the Metropolitical See being tranſlated from Caerleon to another city, the Metropolitan ſhould ſtill retain his original title, that of Biſhop of Caerleon.
Other exceptions he proceeds to adde, but thoſe ſo farre again from being,p. 410. according to promiſe, demonſtrative evidences againſt this testimonie, that they are no way worthy to be attended to.
Firſt, that Dinoth would probably have anſwered in Latine, and to that I have already replied, that I may well grant he did ſo, and conſequently that both the Welch and Engliſh in Mr. Moſton's MS. were tranſlations of that Latine.
Secondly, that the words in Welch rendred [whom you name to be Pope—] are not rightly tranſlated; In this again I cannot contend, having no knowledge in that language, but as before I followed Sir Henry's tranſlation, and finding it not very clear, did endevour to expreſſe his meaning by a juſt Paraphraſe, and thereby happily rendred the true ſenſe of the place, ſo if I ſhould now believe my teacher again, this Author, that undertakes to correct Sir Henry's tranſlation, it would not be impoſſible ſo to render the words, as ſhould bear a very commdious ſenſe, and perfectly agreeable to the notion I formerly had of them.
But being not ſecure that my leader H. T. (whom now I diſcern to be no Welch-man) hath really the skill in that language, which his animadverſions pretend to, I thought it more reaſonable to conſult ſome other more knowing guide, and am now from a judicious hand aſſured, that there is an error in the diſtinction between Daad: and yw gleimio, which being taken away, the true rendring of the whole is this, Et aliam obedientiam, quam iſtam, non agnoſco ego cujuſquam eſſe, quem vos nominat is Papam, vel patrem patrum, vendicare & poſtulare, And any other obedience than that, I acknowledge not to be any mans (or to belong to any man) whom ye name Pope, or Father of Fathers, to challenge and require. This is plain ſenſe, and ſtill perfectly agreeable to the underſtanding, I formerly had of the words, and I doubt not but upon the moſt Critical examination it will be found to be the moſt literal rendring of them.
The third, of the no good ſenſe of the Engliſh is already anſwered alſo, by adhering to that better tranſlation, which is as perfectly fit for our turns, as the other was imagined to be, and much more intelligible and clear, as appeared in the laſt number.
The fourth is, that the words uſed of the Biſhop of Caerleon▪ [who is to overſee under God over us] makes againſt the …ym of the Prelatick reformers, and particularly againſt me, who labour to ſupport the King's Supremacie againſt the Pope, whereas theſe words exclude the King as well as the Pope] But certainly there is no force in this, for Auguſtine's demand, or queſtion being onelyonly of that obedience and ſubordination which belonged to the ſupreme Biſhop, whether that were the Biſhop of Rome, or the Biſhop, of Caerleon, and not at all inquiring into the nature or extent of the regal or imperial power (there being no occaſion to ſuggeſt any ſuch inquirie) the Abbot's anſwer can in no probability be extended any farther than the queſtion extended, i. e. to the aſſerting the Prime Epiſcopal power to belong to the Metropolitan of Caerleon or S. David's, without any ſubordination to the Pope of Rome.
As for that which in the fift place he adds of the miracle and divine vengeance, in Bede, and ſo concludes his Appendix, to that I have ſpoken*n. 19, 20. already, in that which I thought meet to premiſe to this debate, and ſo I have no more to adde by way of anſwer to his exceptions, but that I cannot ſufficiently wonder, that this Author (ſo recommended to the the Reader by his learned Friend in the front of his Book) ſhould make it his ſolemn buſineſſe to invalidate this one ſupernumerary teſtimony, being withall no better provided with arguments to promiſe him ſucceſſe in it.
The End.
ERRATA.
PAge 4. line 28. after him adde,
p. 15. l. 24. after ſide re: or
p. 33. marg: l. 3. re: Apolog: l. 29. after muſt adde,
p. 36. l. 32. re: nomina
p. 40. l. 12. re: foreign l. 13. re: foreign
p. 83. l. 34. re: foreign
p. 15. l. 24. after foreign dele,
p. 19. l. 33. after elſe adde)
p. 90. l. 17. for foreign re: foreign l. 20. for the re: then
p. 96. l. ult: re: foreign
p. 108. l. 30. re: teſtifie
p. 111. marg: l. 11. re: foreign
p. 120. l. 26. re: it as
p. 121. l. 11. re: Campegius
p. 129. l. 8. re: foreign l. 6. re: yet larger
p 133. l. 17. re: by this
p. 135. l. 6. re: ſchiſm in him,
p. 136. l. 35. re: foreign
p. 137. l. 29. re: and ſhall l. 32. re: extitit
p. 138. l. ult: re: is one
p. 141. l. 7. re: are by us believed to be con-l. 24. re: our innocence
p. 148. l. 36. re: is utterly
p. 150. l. 7. re: this
p. 155. l. 11. re: the fall
p. 160. l. 36. re: foreign
p. 161. l. 11. re: Naucratius
End of the text · Henry Hammond, A Reply to the Catholic Gentlemans Answer (1654)