being a very usefull point but not very agreeing with the simplicity of the primitive Christians wanted some more than ordinary confirmation and such we are told it had For St. David having a design to consecrate this Church our Lord appeared to him in a Dream and forbad him having consecrated both the Church and Church-yard before himself And for a Sign thereof he thrust his Finger through the Bishop's hand Which it seems was to pass for the Token of a former Consecration But as much as this looks like a Monkish Legend Alford and Cressy are much displeased with Sir H. Spelman for calling it in question But they who can in earnest believe That Christ himself did then consecrate a Church and Church-yard to the honour of his Mother are past all Confutation by reason having their minds naturally framed to believe Legends and to such one Legend serves to confirm another which is the way those persons take to confute Sir H. Spelman For Cressy to prove the Antiquity of dedicating Churches to the blessed Virgin brings the Tradition of the Temple at Saragoça called del Pilar because the Pillar on which her Image was placed was brought thither by the Ministery of Angels Now those things are thought Proofs by some which to others look onely like bringing one Absurdity to support another But as yet we find no Testimony to confirm this Tradition but what is taken from Glassenbury which is not the best Witness in a Cause which so nearly concern'd it self But these now mentioned Authours at last venture on a considerable Testimony if it hold good viz. of Augustin the Monk in an Epistle to Gregory but upon Examination that which they quote out of St. Augustin's Epistle is nothing else but the passage already mentioned by Malmsbury which he found in a Book taken out of the Library of St. Augustin at Canterbury and they might as well have quoted St. Edmund's Epistle to the Pope to the same purpose For William of Malmsbury saith He met with the same passage at St. Edmund 's as well as St. Augustin 's i. e. in the Libraries of those Monasteries I will not dissemble that they cite two considerable Authours of our own for this mistake I wish they had been as ready to have followed them where they were in the right as where they were guilty of an oversight which the most carefull Writers may sometimes fall into But it is an unhappy temper to follow Great men onely in their Errours and Imperfections So that upon the whole matter we have not one Testimony which reaches to the point concerning Joseph of Arimathea which is not originally taken from the Glassenbury Legends where it seems there was great choice of them For Capgrave mentions several one out of which the Life of Joseph of Arimathea there is extracted is said to be taken out of a Book which the Emperour Theodosius found in the Palace of Pilate at Jerusalem which is a very hopefull Introduction to a Legend And there we find the History of Joseph of Arimathea very distinctly set down How he was miraculously delivered out of Prison in Jerusalemand conveyed to Arimathea whither the chief of the Jews sent a solemn Embassy to him of seven Persons with an Epistle wherein they beg Pardon for his Imprisonment and desire his Company at Jerusalem whither being come upon their request he gives an account of his Escape the house being taken up by four Angels and Christ appeared to him and carried him to the place where he buried him and shew'd him the Linen Cloth about his Head after which he was baptized by Philip and was present with him at the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and fifteen years after he came to Philip in Gaul who sent him over into Britain with twelve of his Disciples and his Son Josephes But an other Tradition saith They were six hundred Men and Women who were to come over having taken a Vow of Abstinence till they came to Land which they did all break but one hundred and fifty who passed the Sea upon the Shirt of Josephes but the rest repenting a Ship was sent to convey them over which was built by King Salomon and with them came a Duke of the Medes called Nacianus formerly baptized by Joseph in the City Saram with the King of it called Mordraius who valiantly killed a King of North-Wales who kept Joseph a Prisoner After which he and his Companions preached here in the time of Arviragus And then follows the common Tradition of his giving the Island of Avalon to them and the twelve Hydes of Land by the three Pagan Kings Arviragus Marius and Coilus This is followed by another Tradition out of the Acts of King Arthur and the Inquisition of Lancelot de Lac all which is concluded with the admirable Legend of Melkinus Avalonius already mentioned These are the choice Materials in Capgrave's Collection to confirm this Tradition And if he had found any better he would no doubt have produced them It must be confessed that Mr. Cressy with some scorn rejects that part of the Tradition taken out of the holy Graal about the six hundred Companions and the Prince of Media c. But I can find no better Authority for one part than for the other and for all that I can see the holy Graal deserves as much credit as the Book taken out of Pilat's Palace or Melkinus Avalonius especially since Pits hath given the supposed Author so good a place among his British Writers under the name of Eremita Britannus and saith he lived about the time of King Ina Anno Dom. 720. And Helinandus takes notice of the Vision to the British Eremit about that time concerning Joseph of Arimathea and the Dish wherein our Saviour ate the Passover with his Disciples which sort of Dish he saith was then called in French Graal but others think the true name was Sangreal being some of Christ's real bloud which he shed upon the Cross which was said to be somewhere found by King Arthur And to confirm this it is said in the authentick Writing of Melkinus That in the Coffin of Joseph were two Silver Vessels filled with the Bloud and Sweat of Jesus the Prophet But lest I should seem to expose so ancient a Tradition by setting down onely the fabulous Mixtures which the Monks thought to adorn it with I now proceed from their Dreams and Visions to what seems to have much more weight and authority in it viz. their ancient Records which William of Malmsbury seems most to rely upon Among these In the first place he mentions the Charter of St. Patrick as he calls it which is at large printed in the Monasticon and both in Alford and Cressy and is magnified by them as a substantial proof of the Glassenbury Tradition which Cressy saith was transcribed out of a very ancient MS. belonging to Glassenbury by Marianus Victorius and for this he
Person in this Island or that he had Royal Authority in some part of it or that he was converted to Christianity at that time or that the Christian Church here flourished by his means That there was such a Person who was a King and a Christian is proved besides the concurrence of so many Authours from Bede's time from the two Coins mention'd by Archbishop Vsher one Silver and the other Gold having an Image of a King on them with a Cross and the Letters of LVC as far as they could be discerned But if it be farther asked in what part of Britain this King Lucius lived I shall onely propose my Conjecture and leave it to the Judgment of others It is well known that the Romans were so well satisfied with the fidelity of Cogidunus that they bestow'd some Cities upon him And Tacitus saith he continued firm to the Roman Interest to his time And where Kings were faithfull to them the Romans were kind to their Posterity and kept them up in the same dignity as long as they behaved themselves as they expected from them Of this we have a clear instance in Herod's Posterity For Archelaus Herodes Antipas and Philip his Sons succeeded into their shares of his Kingdom Then Herod Agrippa his Grandchild by Aristobulus was made King by Caius Caligula whose Government was inlarged by Claudius and his Brother Herod had the Kingdom of Chalcis given him Sometime after his Father's death Claudius bestow'd first the Kingdom of Chalcis upon his Son Agrippa then the Tetrarchy of Philip which was inlarged afterwards by Nero and he continued till the War and was the last King over the Jews Now from hence we observe That the Romans thought it no ill policy in some Cases to continue the same Royal dignity to the Children of those who deserved so well of them as Cogidunus had done And it seems most probable to me that where Ptolemy places the Regni were the Cities which Cogidunus had the rule over not from the Name but from the Circumstances of those places which have fewer Roman Monuments or Towns than any other in Britain and therefore were most likely still under their own Prince who kept up the British customs Whereever the Romans inhabited they may be traced by their Ways by their Buildings by their Coins by their Urns by their Inscriptions But scarce any thing of this nature could be found in Surry or Sussex by the most diligent Enquirers Leland indeed discover'd some Roman Coins near Kingston upon Thames where others have been taken up since but Camden could hear of no Roman Antiquities thereabouts And some suppose the place where those Coins were taken up to have been a Station of the Roman Souldiers under Asclepiodotus when he marched that way from Portsmouth to London in the Expedition against Allectus If so it was too late for the days of King Lucius All that Camden pretends to is onely a Military way near Ockley which was necessary for the conveniency of the Roman Souldiers passing to the remoter parts of the Province and some Coins about Gatton but as to his Noviomagus which he will have to be Woodcote in Surrey Mr. Somner hath well proved from the course of the Roman Itinerary that it must lie in Kent in the Road to Portus Rutupis and Woodcote is as far from it as London In all Sussex there is no remainder of any Roman Building or Way or Colony or Coins yet discovered to the World except towards the Sea side which the Romans kept to themselves In Antoninus Pius his time Seius Saturnius was Archigubernus in Classe Britannica Which shews that the Romans had then a Fleet here and that he was Admiral of it And in after-times the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam had several Garrisons on the Sea side for Security of the Coasts as appears by the Notitia Imperii where the Places are set down among which two were on the coasts of Sussex Anderida and Portus Adurni By the former our learned Antiquaries Camden and Selden understand Newenden in Kent but that stands too much within Land Mr. Somner in a MS. discourse of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent rather thinks it to be Pemsey in Sussex or Hastings as more agreeing with Gildas who saith that the Romans placed their Forts for Security of the Coasts in litore Oceani ad Meridionalem Plagam upon the very Coasts And so the rest of them stood as Reculver Richborough Dover Lim which were all in Kent and the Portus Adurni was Aldrington near Shoreham in Sussex From hence it appears that the Romans being secure of the Coasts and having their Souldiers dispersed in the Colonies about and being so near the Metropolis at London where the chief Governours of this part of Britain resided They might better permit a British King to govern these parts of the Countrey And this is the most probable account I can think of as to this King Lucius within the Roman Province Sir H. Spelman would bring him to his Iceni but without any colour of Probability Lucius saith he was the son of Coilus Coilus of Marius Marius of Arviragus And what then Some he saith would have him to be Prasutagus who was King over the Iceni But doth not Tacitus say that Prasutagus died before the Revolt of the Britains under Boadicea And that he left Nero his heir and his two Daughters hoping thereby to secure his Kingdom If he were Arviragus he was dead before the Revolt of the Iceni And if Marius were his Son how comes he never to be mention'd in the Story afterwards no not in that most remarkable Battel between his Mother and Suetonius Paulinus But Hector Boethius calls Arviragus one of the Iceni as though his authority were to be mention'd against Tacitus who was the Geffrey of Scotland so many and so improbable are his Fictions Baronius after trying several ways to reconcile the Tradition of King Lucius with the Roman Story concludes with that as the most probable That he was a King under the Roman Power in Britain such as Prasutagus was But he was onely King over the Iceni and not over all Britain and although among the Britains there were many Kings over particular Cities as they then called the People under one Government yet there was no one King over the whole Island But in Cases of great difficulty they pitched upon one as Supreme as on Cassibelan upon the Invasion of Caesar So that the old British Government was neither Popular as some pretend nor under one Monarchy but the People were govern'd by several petty Monarchs as appears by the unquestionable Testimonies of Diodorus Siculus Strabo and Pomponius Mela Fert populos Reges populorum saith Mela Olim Regibus parebant saith Tacitus which prove both the Antiquity and Number of British Monarchs And what Dio saith of a Democratical Government
That after the Death of Maximus the Scots and the Picts did waste Britain and that then Stilicho did send assistence to them Why then should the first wasting of the Countrey spoken of by Gildas and the Legion sent upon it be that in the latter end of Honorius and not rather that in the beginning For the latter end of Honorius his Reign was very perplexed and troublesome The Alani Suevi and Vandali were in Spain The Franks Burgundians and Goths in Gaul Iovinus and Sebastian there after Constantine's death usurped the Empire And although the Goths going into Spain did great Service against the other Barbarians yet such were the Straits of the Roman Empire in Gaul That Constantius who then managed the Affairs of the Empires was forced to recall them as both Prosper and Idatius say Monaxius and Plinta being Consuls which was the twenty fourth of Honorius and to give them all that part in Gaul from the Garonne to the Ocean The year before Honorius his death he was forced to send his Forces under Castinus into Spain against the Vandals as Prosper affirms and that proved the Occasion of new Troubles in Africa by the difference between Castinus and Bonifucius who for his own Security conveyed over the Vandals thither It is not therefore very probable that the first Supplies of the Britains should be in the latter end of Honorius especially since the Learned Primate confesseth that Honorius did not in his time recover the Province of Britain and he proves it against Sabellicus from Procopius Bede the Saxon Annals and Ethelwerd And the single Testimony of Sigebert That Honorius at the same time sent assistence to the Britains that he did to the Spaniards when Prosper Idatius and Cassiodore who all mention the latter say not a word of the former cannot weigh down the Reasons on the other side But as to the second Supplies which were sent upon the mighty importunity of the Britains They were in probability in the beginning of the Reign of Valentinian III. after that Aêtius had somewhat recover'd the Credit of the Roman Empire in Gaul For after his Success there both against the Goths and Franks he had liberty enough to send over a Legion to the Assistence of the Britains who were again miserably harass'd by the Scots and Picts And at this time it was that Gildas saith The Romans upon the sad Representations the British Embassadours made of their pitifull condition sent them speedy Supplies who coming upon their Enemies on a sudden like a violent Torrent drove them all before them and made them repass the Seas Which is an Argument they did not then inhabit in Britain But the Romans then plainly told the Britains they were not at leisure to bring over Legions as often as their Enemies invaded them But they must train up their own People to Arms to defend themselves and their Wives and Children against a sort of Men no ways stronger than themselves And to incourage them the more they built a Wall of Stone from Sea to Sea and Forts on the Shore and exercised them in Arms taking their leave of them and telling them they must expect their return no more This is the Substance of Gildas his Relation with whom Bede agrees onely inlarging the Description of the Wall which he saith was eight Foot in breadth and twelve in height and that it stood where the Wall of Severus stood being all made of Stone and not of Turf as that unserviceable Wall was which the Britains had before without skill and direction built for themselves It hath been much disputed among our Learned Antiquaries where this last Wall stood whether in the place where the former of Turf was raised by the Britains between the two Friths or where Hadrian's Wall was first built between the Tine and the Esk Bede puts a great distance between these two Walls and makes the former to have been between the two Friths beginning at a Place called Peneltun two miles from Abercorney and ending to the West near Alcluyd which saith he signifies a Rock in the River Cluyd But the latter Wall was from Sea to Sea in a direct Line between the Cities there built for Security against Incursions and it stood in the Place of Severus his Wall Joh. Fordon distinguishes between the old Wall called Grimes-dike from Grime a Britain whose Daughter Fergus married and after his death ruled over the Scots during his Grand-child's Minority and which Wall he saith this Grime overthrew and so recovered the ancient Possessions due to him as descended from Fulgenius and the other Wall built where Severus his stood And he gives very different descriptions of them The former Wall he saith begins from the East upon the South-side of the Scotish Shore near a Village called Karedin and then for twenty two miles crosses the Land leaving Glasgow on the South and ends on the Bank of the River Clyd near Kirk-patrick The other he saith begins on the East in the Southern Bank of the Tyne to Gaitsheved or Goats-head where Severus saith he a long time before had made a Wall and a Trench over against New-castle and so it is continued to the River Esk called Scotishwath for sixty miles and ends near Carlisle on the West But Buchanan contends that Severus his Wall was where Graham's Dike or Grimes-dike was and at least eighty miles distant from Hadrian 's Wall which he proves from the Antiquities there found and the square Stones taken up which do sufficiently prove an ancient Stone Wall to have been there but not that of Severus And the Roman Inscriptions in Camden mention Antoninus and not Severus Joh. Major places Severus his Wall as Fordon doth between the Tyne and the Esk. But Archbishop Vsher hath endeavoured to clear this matter by yielding to Buchanan that the Scotish Wall was made of Stone viz. by the Romans under Gallio Ravennas and by proving that Bede was mistaken as to Severus his Wall being made of Turf before which was the Reason he thought it turned into Stone at this time it being not likely that the Romans would bring the Britains at least eighty miles back and put them to defend a Wall so very much longer than the other But I rather think Severus his Wall was now repaired and a larger Scope allow'd for the Picts and Scots As besides what hath been said before may appear by this one Argument from Fordon He saith That when the Scots made a new Incursion they open'd Passages in the Wall from whence it was called Thirle-wall i. e. saith he Murus perforatus Now the Learned Primate grants that a Place called Thirle-wall stood on the Borders of Cumberland and Northumberland And that Fordon saith Thirle-wall was built by Severus on the Tyne And therefore Bede seems to have been in the right as to Severus his Wall but onely mistaken in thinking it was made of Turf before which was
kind as injuries to their Countrey if not to the Royal Line But may it not justly seem strange that when our polite and learned Neighbours have endeavoured with so much care to reform their Histories and to purge away all fabulous Antiquities out of them we of this Island should grow angry and impatient when any undertake so generous a design What injury is it thought to be to the Royal Line of France that Hunibaldus his Antiquities find no longer place in their Histories And yet nothing seems more glorious than to have their Royal Line deduced long before the time that Alexander took Babylon For according to Hunibaldus his Account which he took he saith out of an ancient MS. of Vastaldus such another Authour as Veremundus the Franks went from Troy under the Conduct of Francio towards the Palus Maeotis just about the time that Aeneas went for Italy where they fixed and built the City Sicambria and at last removed into Germany under Marcomir the Son of Priamus and Sunno the Son of Antenor After Francio Hunibaldus sets down a formal Succession of Kings of two several Races 16 in the first and 31 in the second All which he gives a very particular account of as to the times of their Reign for above 413 years before Christ's Nativity And although this ancient Succession of Kings was a long time received and magnified as appears by Lazius and P. Aemilius and Fordon quotes Sigebert for it yet now their learned Historians are ashamed to mention it much more to plead for it and to charge those with a degree of Lese-Majesty who call it in question Suffridus Petrus hath written the Antiquities of Friseland much in the way that Hector Boethius hath done those of Scotland He tells a very grave Story concerning a Province in the Indies called Fresia from whence a Colony was sent under Friso Saxo and Bruno who went into Alexander's Army and for this he quotes old Frisian Rythms and one Patrocles an old Indian Writer and besides he hath all the Advocate 's Common places of Tradition common Fame the Testimonies of their own Historians and he names Andreas Cornelius it seems there was a Cornelius Frisius as well as Hibernicus Solco Fortemannus Occo Scherlensis Joh. Uleterpius and several others who with one Consent deliver these Antiquities But saith he ye will object that in so long a time and amidst so many Wars such Antiquities could hardly be preserved To that he answers That Friso being admirably skilled in Greek Learning set up a publick School at Stauria near the Temple of Stavo and in the Temple a Library on purpose for Antiquities like that of Icolmkill and besides a Palace was built by Uffo wherein was contained the Effigies of all their Kings from Friso who came to Friseland just 313 years before Christ's Nativity to the time of Charlemagn for 1113 years And are not these Antiquities very well attested yet since Ubbo Emmius hath confuted them no learned Advocate hath appeared in vindication of them Is it any disparagement to the Royal Line of Spain to have the first Succession of Kings there disputed viz. from Jubal to Melicola the 24th King from him who is said to have reigned there the very year after the destruction of Troy So very punctual are the Authours of Fabulous Antiquities And if you believe them they have good ancient Authours and the Tradition of their Countrey for them haec nostri Majores multis Libris tradiderunt saith the pretended Berosus And by these helps we have great light given us into the Antiquities of Europe for thereby we understand that Janus who was somewhat elder than Gathelus being Noah himself gave Tuysco the Countrey from the Tanais to the Rhyne Italy to Gomer the Celtick Provinces to Samothes and Celtiberia to Jubal And this was just 131 years after the Floud Gomer went into Italy the 10th year of Saturn the Father of Jupiter Belus in the 12th Jubal went into Celtiberia and not long after Samothes called Dis founded the Celtick Colonies among which were the Britains and from him their Druids were called Samothei after Jubal among the Celtiberians reigned Iberus his Son from whom came the name of Iberi and among the Celtae Magus the Son of Samothes in the 51st year of Ninus who succeeded Jupiter Belus This Magus in the Scythian Language is Magog and from him came so many terminations of the Names of Towns as Rhotamagum Noviomagum Juliomagum Caesaromagum c. In the 34th of Semiramis Jubelda Son of Iber succeeded in Celtiberia in the time of Ninias Son to Semiramis reign'd Sarron among the Celtae from him the learned Gauls were called Sarronidae the same I suppose with our Advocate 's Sanachies In the 20th of Arius Brigus reigned in Celtiberia and in the 29th Dryius among the Celtae nothing can be more natural than to derive the Druids from him who being converted the Advocate tells us became their first Monks and in the Irish Version of the New Testament the wise Men are translated Druids therefore the Druids were originally Irish. In the time of Aralius the seventh King of Babylon Bardus was King over the Celtae and he was the Inventour of Musick and Verses and from him came the Bards who were the Poets of their Traditions as the Advocate styles them After him succeeded Longo then Bardus junior after him Lucus and then Celtes and Galates Narbon Lugdus Beligius Allobrox Romus Paris Lemannus Galatas junior and Francus Must we allow all these noble Antiquities for fear of shortning the Royal Lines of the Princes of Europe And yet here is a great appearance of Exactness a pretence to ancient Records and to the common Tradition of the several Countries for Berosus appeals both to Tradition and Writing and so doth Manetho in the continuation of him quae ex nostris Historicis vel corum relationibus consecuti fumus so that here we have the two Supporters of Antiquities which the Advocate builds upon viz. Tradition and Records And Metasthenes another pretended continuer of Berosus saith he took all out of the Royal Library at Susae where the Persian Annals were preserved But notwithstanding all these fair shews and specious pretences there is not a Man of tolerable judgment in Europe who would venture his Reputation to plead for these Antiquities But the learned Advocate saith That their Antiquities have been received with great applause for many hundreds of years by all Historians Antiquaries and Criticks of other Nations who had any occasion to take notice of their affairs These are very high expressions and argue a good assurance in the very beginning of his Book For my part I do not pretend to acquaintance with all Historians Antiquaries and Criticks for many hundreds of years and so there may have been some for any thing I know who have applauded their Histories from 330 years before Christ but upon my little knowledge in Books I dare
till Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury obtain'd leave for it about Anno Dom. 758. Upon this Alford and Cressy charge him with a manifest mistake and great impertinency A mistake in that Ethelbert and Augustine were both buried in the Church of St. Peter and Saint Paul And what then Doth Sir H. Spelman say there was no burying in Churches before Cuthbert's time No. But that there was no Burying Place in Cities before that time For the Church of St. Augustine or St. Peter and St. Paul was without the City For so the MS. Chronicle of St. Augustine 's saith That when the Bodies of the Kings and Archbishops were carried thither to burial they follow'd our Saviour who suffer'd without the Gate And that it was like the children of Israel 's going out of Egypt c. Which is sufficient to prove the truth of Sir H. Spelman's Observation which relates to Burying in Cities and not in Churches And withall the Reason alledged in one of the Charters of King Ethelbert why that place was assigned for a Burying place is because the City is for the Living and not for the Dead But why do they not prove the Antiquity of Church-yards to be so great which was the most to the purpose But they say Sir H. Spelman 's Observation was impertinent Glassenbury being then a solitary place and very far from being a City It is true If the weight had been laid by him onely upon that there being no Evidence of any Roman City there But his design was to prove That Church-yards were not then adjoining to Churches because the Cemeteries were without the City and the Churches within in the British times And even in the Saxon times he saith although they buried in Churches yet those Churches in which they buried were without the Cities till Cuthbert first procured the alteration by Royal authority and some say by Papal too But the Monks of St. Augustine's denied the Pope's confirmation But the main Circumstance I shall insist upon is the Incongruity of this Story with the condition of the Roman Province at that time For there was no such British King then as Arviragus and in that Countrey as will appear by the more Southern parts of the Island being reduced into the form of a Province before Anno Dom. 63. when the Glassenbury Tradition saith Joseph of Arimathea came first to Britain For Tacitus saith it was done as to the nearest part of the Island when A. Plautius and Ostorius Scapula were Governours here and between them and Suetonius Paulinus were Didius Gallus and Veranius In probability the Belgae were subdued by Vespasian of whom Suetonius saith That he conquer'd here two powerfull Nations aboue twenty Towns and the Isle of Wight By which we find his employment was Westward and the Belgae and Damnonii were the two powerfull Nations that way And in all the Actions afterwards we find no Care taken by the Roman Generals to secure themselves against the Belgae as they did against the Brigantes and Silures among whom Caractacus commanded so that there could be no such British King at that time among the Belgae as Arviragus is supposed to have been For if there had been when Ostorius marched Northwards having suppressed the Iceni it is not to be supposed that he would have fixed his Garrisons on the Severn and the Avon to secure the Province For as our Judicious Antiquary hath well observed The design of Ostorius therein was to keep the Provincial Britains from joining with the others and therefore all on this side those Garrisons were within the Roman Province Now the Places where the Garrisons were placed are by Tacitus said to be Antona and Sabrina The latter is certainly the Severn which parted the Belgae and the Silures For Antona Camden reads Aufona although Northanton comes nearer the former Name and Southanton had its Name from the River Anton which there runs into the Sea and Ptolemy calls Trisanton i. e. saith Camden Traith Anton the Mouth of Anton But he chuses Aufona for this reason because the two Avons rise both in the Country of Northampton and so cut the Island that none can pass out of the North but they must cross one or the other of them or else fall upon the Roman Garrisons between the Remainders whereof he takes notice of between the rise of the two Avons at Gildsborough and Daintry by which means he hindred all intercourse between the Brigantes and the Roman Province as the other did between the Silures and them But if there had been such a British King as Arviragus among the Belgae what would the fortifying the Severn have signified when the Enemies to the Romans lived on the Roman side Tacitus indeed mentions an Expedition of Ostorius against the Cangi whom Camden sometimes thought a small People among the Belgae but upon better consideration he places them in Cheshire where he found an Inscription concerning the CEANGI And Tacitus saith They were not far from the Sea coast which looks towards Ireland R. White of Basingstoke supposes this Arviragus to bestow the Island on Joseph of Arimathea when Trebellius Maximus was Governour here who succeeded Petronius Turpilianus the year C. Suetonius Paulinus was Consul at Rome Which according to the Savilian Fasti was in the twelfth year of Nero and Anno Domini 67. four years after Joseph's coming according to the Glassenbury Tradition but that is no great matter if at that time we are sure there was such a King as Arvinagus among the Belgae But he again contradicts the Glassenbury Story For Malmsbury saith That the Barbarous King obstinately refused to quit his Religion but out of pity to them gave them the Island to live in but White saith He was well affected to the Christian Religion and was in all respects an admirable Prince This Arviragus he takes out of the British History where pleasant Stories are told of him and from thence in Matthew Westminster as of his opposing Claudius and then marrying his Daughter Genissa and the reconciliation between him and Vespasian by her means c. And how his Son Marius succeeded him and then Coillus who was wonderfully beloved by the Roman Senate Here we have found at last the three Kings of Glassenbury Arviragus Marius and Coillus as they are exstant in Capgrave and others So that the Glassenbury Tradition had not its perfection till it had received these improvements from the British History For William of Malmsbury though he took so great pains in this matter yet knew nothing of Arviragus Marius and Coillus He speaks indeed of three Pagan Kings giving twelve portions of Land to the twelve Brethren but he knew not their Names Which Grant he saith was confirmed by King Lucius to twelve others who were placed there in imitation of the first twelve And this continued to the coming of St. Patrick And yet towards the Conclusion of this Book
objected That there are no certain Monuments of such Churches planted by him in Italy Gaul Germany or Spain What certain Monuments are there of new Churches planted by him in the East after his return And it is so much less probable because the Eastern Writers who should know best allot this time to his Preaching in the West But it is well observed by the Learned M. Velserus speaking of the Preaching of the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul in these Western parts That we are not to judge of the Planting of Churches by the remaining Annals and Monuments because on the one side we are certain that their sound went out into all the Earth And on the other great care was taken in the several Persecutions especially that of Dioclesian to burn all the Monuments which concerned the Christian Churches But yet as to Britain we have undoubted Testimony of a Christian Church planted here by the Apostles and by none so probably as Saint Paul For Gildas saith The Gospel was here received before the fatal defeat of the Britains by Suetonius Paulinus which according to Sir H. Savil's Fasti was the seventh of Nero the eighth saith Petavius And St. Paul being at liberty the fifth had time and conveniency enough to settle a Christian Church in Britain 2. That there was Incouragement and Invitation enough for St. Paul to come into Britain not onely from the Infinite numbers of People which Caesar saith were here in his time but from the new Settlements that were daily making here by the Romans after the first Success which they had in the time of Claudius For then Colonies were drawn over hither And not onely Military Colonies settled for the security of the Roman Conquests such as that of Camalodunum is described by Tacitus formerly the Royal Seat of Cynobelin King of the Trinobantes but also Civil and Trading Colonies such as London was from the beginning and therefore commended by Tacitus for its admirable Situation for Trading and all Accommodations to that end and upon the best enquiry I can make I very much incline to believe it of a Roman Foundation and no elder than the time of Claudius as will be made appear in another Discourse And that in the time of Suetonius Paulinus it was inhabited by Romans and Britains together is evident from Tacitus When Suetonius Paulinus drew out the Inhabitants the City not being then defensible against the Britains who in that Revolt destroyed LXX thousand Romans and their Allies saith Tacitus But Dio saith two Cities London and Verulam for Camalodunum was destroyed before and Eighty thousand Men. This was a time of so much Disorder and Bloudshed That Gildas with great reason places the Planting of Christianity here before it And St. Paul might have some particular incouragement at Rome to come hither from Pomponia Graecina Wife to A. Plautius the Roman Lieutenant under Claudius in Britain For that she was a Christian appears very probable from the account Tacitus gives of her He saith she was accused of foreign Superstition and that so far as to endanger her Life But her Husband clear'd her sitting as Iudge according to the ancient form and she lived long after but in perpetual sadness If Tacitus were to describe the Primitive Christians he would have done it just after this manner Charging their Religion with Superstition and the Severity of their Lives abstaining from all the Feasts and Jollities of the Romans as a continual Solitude It was the way of the Men of that time such as Suetonius and Pliny as well as Tacitus to speak of Christianity as a Barbarous and Wicked Superstition as appears by their Writings being forbidden by their Laws which they made the onely Rule of Religion And this happen'd when Nero and Calphurnius Piso were Consuls after St. Paul's coming to Rome and therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose her one of his Converts by whom he might easily be informed of the state and condition of Britain and thereby be more incouraged to undertake a Voyage thither It is certain that St. Paul did make considerable Converts at his coming to Rome Which is the reason of his mentioning the Saints in Caesar 's houshold And it is not improbable that some of the British Captives carried over with Caractacus and his family might be some of them who would certainly promote the Conversion of their Countrey by St. Paul But I cannot affirm as Moncaeius doth That Claudia mention'd by St. Paul was Caractacus his Daughter and turn'd Christian and after married to Pudens a Roman Senatour whose Marriage is celebrated by Martial in his noted Epigrams to that purpose It is certain that Claudia Ruffina was a Britain who is so much commended by Martial for her Wit and Beauty But if these Epigrams were written in Trajan's time as is very probable It is somewhat of the latest for the Daughter of Caractacus who came in Claudius his time to Rome But Alford digests all this well enough onely he is extremely concern'd lest she should be made the Apostle of Britain and Preach here before St. Peter But the Authour of the Antiquitates Britannicae whom he reflects upon saith no such thing as he would impute to him He onely saith That if she were a Christian she would acquaint her Countreymen as much with the Christian Doctrine as she did before with Martial 's Witt. Wherein there is no Profaneness or Absurdity But he adds that in so Noble a Family The rest of her kindred who were baptized with her might be the Occasions of dispersing Christianity in the British Nation So that there was no need for his bidding Claudia to keep at home and make room for St. Peter to come to Britain to preach the Gospel But if this Claudia were St. Paul's Disciple why might not she excite that Apostle to go into her Countrey to plant Christianity there as he had done with so much Success in other Places And whether St. Peter or St. Paul were more probably the Apostle of Britain is now to be considered And I affirm 3. That St. Paul was the most likely to come hither of any of the Apostles The several Traditions about St. James Simon Zelotes and Philip are so destitute of any ancient Testimony or Probability that the Competition among the Apostles can lie onely between St. Peter and St. Paul Some Writers of our Church History have endeavoured for particular Reasons to prove St. Peter to have preached the Gospel in Britain But their Proofs are very slight and inconsiderable and depend chiefly on the authority of Simeon Metaphrastes or other Legendary Writers or some Monkish Visions or some Domestick Testimonies of his pretended Successours or some late partial Advocates such as Eysengrenius who professes to follow Metaphrastes All which together are not worth mentioning in comparison with the Authours on the other side I shall therefore examine the Probability
in that Epistle makes it his business to persuade Arsacius to take all things commendable from the Christians and no doubt this was thought so by his Predecessours who first set up this Sacerdotal Government of Provinces among them And if I mistake not it began much later than the first Settlement of Episcopacy in the British Churches For Eusebius saith That Maximinus appointed not onely Priests in the Cities but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chief-priests in the Provinces where Valesius mistakes his meaning for he thinks all the Innovation of Maximinus was the appointing them himself whereas they were wont to be chosen by the Decuriones in the Cities But he speaks of it as a new thing of Maximinus to appoint such an Order and Office among the Priests which had not been known before And that which puts this matter out of doubt is That Lactantius in his excellent Piece lately published out of MS. by Baluzius saith expresly of Maximinus Novo more Sacerdotes maximos per singulas Civitates singulos ex primoribus fecit i.e. That by a new Custome he appointed Chief Priests in the several Cities of the greatest Persons in them who were not onely to doe the Office of Priests themselves but to look after the inferiour Priests and by their means to hinder the Christians from their Worship and to bring them to punishment But as though this were not enough He appointed other Priests over the Provinces in a higher degree above the rest Although then Valesius asserted that such were elder than Maximinus yet Lactantius whose authority is far greater hath determined the contrary I am not ignorant that long before Maximinus his time Tertullian mentions the Praesides Sacerdotales but those do not relate to this matter but to the Spectacula as appears by the place Some insist on the Sacerdotes Provinciales in Tertullian but Rigaltius shews there ought to be a comma between them it being very unlikely the Provincial Priests should have Golden Crowns when those at Rome had not And in a Canon of the African Code we find the Sacerdotes Provinciae but that Council was long after Anno Dom. 407. And these seem to be no other than Advocates who were to appear for the Causes which concerned the Temples and Sacrifices throughout the Province According to which method the African Bishops there desire That the Churches might have Advocates too with the same Privileges Which Request was granted by Honorius and was the first Introduction of Lawyers into the Service of the Church who were called Defensores Ecclesiarum and were afterwards Judges in Ecclesiastical Causes But that which comes nearer to this matter is the Authority of the Asiarchae who in some Coins mentioned by Spanhemius are said to be Priests over thirteen Cities And this in the Law is called Sacerdotium Asiae But these seem to have been no other than those who took care of the publick Solemnities in the common Assembly in Asia when the People met out of these Cities to perform them either at Ephesus or Smyrna or any other of the Cities within this combination as is observed by many Learned Men. And although there were but one Chief at a time yet the Office seem'd to have passed by turns through the several Cities And he in whose City the Solemnities were to be kept was the President for that time and had the Title of Asiarcha But Alb. Rubenius shews from Aristides and Dio That the Asiarchae had a Superintendency over the Temples and the Priests within the Community of the Asian Cities But these were onely he saith For the Temples erected to the Caesars out of the common Stock The Temple of Diana at Ephesus belonging to the Ionian Community and not to that of Asia Herodes Atticus is called in the Inscription at Athens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caesar 's High-priest But that seems to be onely a Title without Power But it appears by the Inscription at Thyatira That the Asiarcha was called the High-priest of Asia and had Power to place Priests in the Cities under his Care But still this falls short of such Chief-priests in the Provinces as Maximinus appointed And thus I have endeavour'd to clear the Antiquity and Original Institution of Episcopacy here by shewing that it was not taken up according to the Monkish Tradition from the Heathen Flamins and Archiflamins But came down by Succession from the first planting of Apostolical Churches For although we cannot deduce a lineal Succession of Bishops as they could in other Churches where Writings were preserved yet assoon as through the Churches Peace they came to have intercourse with foreign Churches as in the Council of Arles they appeared with a proportionable number of Bishops with those of other Provinces And their Succession was not in the least disputed among them they subscribing to the Sentence and Canons as others did And what Canons did then pass did no doubt as much concern the British Churches to observe as any other Churches whose Bishops were there present Which Canons were passed by their own Authority For they never sent to the Bishop of Rome to confirm but to publish them as appears by the Synodical Epistle which they sent to him Their words are Quae decrevimus Communi Concilio Charitati tuae significamus ut omnes sciant quid in futurum obserâ—are debeant Baronius had good luck to find out the necessity of the Pope's confirmation here Whereas they plainly tell him they had already decreed them by common consent and sent them to him to divulge them i. e. As Petrus de Marca saith As the Emperours sent their Edicts to their Praefecti Praetorio Was that to confirm them It is true they say the Pope had a larger Diocese But if these words had implied so much as a Patriarchal Power over the Bishops there assembled how could they assume to themselves this Power to make Canons And onely to signifie to him what they had done and to desire him to communicate these Canons to others Would such a Message from a Council have been born since the Papal Supremacy hath been owned Nay how fancily would it have looked in any Council within the Patriarchats of the East to have done so But these Bishops of Arles knew no other Style then but Charitati tuae And they signifie to the Bishop of Rome what they had already decreed but not what they had prepared for him to confirm And they are so far from owning his Authority in calling them together That they tell him They were assembled at the Emperour's Command and were so far from expecting Directions from him that they tell him they had a Divine Authority present with them and a certain Tradition and Rule of Faith They wished indeed he had been present with them and to have judged together with them Was this to make him sole Iudge or could they believe him
be a sufficient Witness in this matter The length and difficulty of the way was no hindrance afterwards for obtaining the Pope's consent for the Consecration of the Bishop of Milan as appears by the instance of Gregory produced by him Why then should that be alledged as the Reason before For the Ways were not one jot shorter or easier to pass But if we compare the Election and Consecration of St. Ambrose at Milan with that of Deus dedit in St. Gregory's time We shall see an apparent difference in the Circumstances of them For at the first there was a Provincial Synod by the Emperour's appointment as Theodoret relates it who referr'd the choice to the Emperour But he declining it and the City falling into great heats about it St. Ambrose was of a sudden chosen being then Governour of the Province and so was Inthronized by the Bishops there present Not one word here of the consent of the Bishop of Rome required or so much as mention'd And yet Pope Damasus was as ready to assert any thing that looked like a Right of his See as Pelagius or Gregory But at that time St. Ambrose at Milan had as great authority as Damasus at Rome And the Italick Diocese was as considerable as the Roman If the length and difficulty of the Way were the true Reason why St. Ambrose did not go to Rome yet why no Messenger sent Why no Agent from the Pope to declare his consent But then the Extent of the Roman Diocese was better understood wherein all the Bishops were to receive Consecration from the Bishop of Rome having no Metropolitane of their own But this did not reach so far as Milan This Roman Diocese was truly Patriarchal having several Provinces under it and was therein peculiar and made a Precedent for the Bishop of Alexandria all the other Western Churches being then govern'd by their several Bishops and Metropolitanes Jac. Leschassier thinks that five of the eleven Provinces of Italy made up this Diocese I mean the Provinces of Augustus and not of Constantine And within these were about seventy Bishops who belonged to the Consecration of the Bishop of Rome having no other Metropolitane And with this as he observes the old Notitia of the Vatican produced by Baronius agrees wherein the Suffragans of the Bishop of Rome are said to be the Bishop of Campania the Marsi Tuscia Vmbria and Marchia which Notitia is the same with the Provinciale Romanum published by Miraeus and compared by him with four MSS. wherein are set down all the Bishops of the Roman Province as it is there called Ferd. Vghellus reckons up seventy Bishops of those who were immediately under the Bishop of Rome 's Jurisdiction and had no Metropolitane over them These were within the Provinces of Latium Valeria Tuscia Picenum and Vmbria which neither answering exactly to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Prefect nor to that of the Vicarius Vrbis We are not to judge of the Extent of this Diocese from that of the Civil Government but from ancient Custome to which the Council of Nice doth expresly attribute it In the Diurnus Romanus lately published by Garnerius out of an ancient Manuscript there is one Title De Ordinatione Episcopi Suburbicarii à Romano Pontifice where the whole Process as to the Consecration of a new Bishop is set down but from thence it appears that none but the Suburbicary Bishops belonged to his Consecration We freely grant then That the Bishop of Rome had a Patriarchal power over several Provinces as the Bishop of Alexandria was allowed to have by the Council of Nice in imitation of him And that within this Diocese he did exercise this as a Patriarchal right to consecrate Bishops within those several Provinces as the Bishop of Alexandria did But we deny that ever the Bishop of Rome did exercise this part of his Patriarchal power beyond the foremention'd Provinces But to prove the larger Extent of the Pope's Power as to Consecrations the Epistle of Siricius to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica is urged whom the Pope makes his Legate in the Part of Illyricum and charges him that no Consecrations should be allowed which were made without his consent And the same appears by the Epistles of Boniface to the Bishops of Thessaly and Illyricum and of Leo to Anastasius All which are published together by Holstenius out of the Barberine Library or rather out of his Transcripts by Card. Barberine but Hieron Alexander cites a Passage out of the same Collection as in the Vatican Library but from whencesoever it came the Objection seems to be the more considerable because as Holstenius in his Notes observes Blondel had denied that it could be proved by any Monument of Antiquity That the Bishop of Thessalonica was Legate to the Pope before the time of Leo. But to give a clear account of this matter Leo himself in his Epistle to Anastasius derives this Authority no higher than from Siricius who gave it to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica certa tum primum ratione commisit ut per illam Provinciam positis quas ad disciplinam teneri voluit Ecclesiis subveniret Siricius immediately succeeded Damasus who died according to Holstenius 11 Dec. 384. Three years after the Council of Constantinople had advanced that See to the Patriarchal dignity which gave great occasion of Jealousie and Suspicion to the Bishops of Rome that being the Imperial City as well as Rome And Socrates observes That from that time Nectarius the Bishop of Constantinople had the Government of Constantinople and Thrace as falling to his share This made the Bishops of Rome think it high time to look about them and to inlarge their Jurisdiction since the Bishop of New Rome had gained so large an accession by that Council And to prevent his farther Incroachments Westwards his Diocese of Thrace bordering upon Macedonia the subtilest Device they could think of to secure that Province and to inlarge their own Authority was to persuade the Bishop of Thessalonica to act as by Commission from the Bishop of Rome So that he should enjoy the same privileges which he had before And being back'd by so great an Interest he would be better able to contest with so powerfull a Neighbour as the Bishop of Constantinople And if any objected That this was to break the Rules settled by the Council of Nice They had that Answer ready That the Bishop of Constantinople began and their Concernment was to secure the Rights of other Churches from being invaded by him By which means they endeavour'd to draw those Churches bordering on the Thracian Diocese first to own a Submission to the Bishop of Rome as their Patriarch Which yet was so far from giving them ease which some it may be expected by it that it onely involved them in continual Troubles as appears by that very Collection of Holstenius For the Bishops of Constantinople
whom Theodoret expresly calls the Arian Faction they there proceeded to the deposing Eustathius upon the Accusation of an infamous Person suborned to that purpose and afterwards prevailed with Constantine to banish him which being done Theodoret saith There was a Succession of Bishops who were secret Arians as of Eulalius Euphronius and Flaccillus and that was the Reason the Orthodox Party then separated themselves and were called Eustathians Socrates and Sozomen confess that the quarrel about Arianism was renew'd soon after the Council of Nice both in Egypt and in Bithynia Hellespont and Constantinople But Socrates saith It was begun about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was indeed the Pretext of the Quarrel but the true Ground was Arianism Socrates being a Man not throughly versed in these Matters blames both sides for contending about they knew not what both agreeing in the same Doctrine and yet not agrèeing among themselves But he did not penetrate into the depth of the Arians Designs as Theodoret a Man of far greater Judgment and Learning did And he proves from Eustathius an eminent Bishop of that time and one present in the Council of Nice that Arianism lay at the bottom and that they complied at first onely out of Fear but had the same hatred to the true Faith they ever had but after the Council they durst not so openly shew it Sozomen saith the Arian Party charged those who asserted Christ of the same Substance with the Father as the Council of Nice had determined with Sabellianism and Blasphemy and the followers of the Nicene Faith charged the others with Idolatry and Innovation as asserting three distinct Gods as to Substance when the Council had declared the Son of the same Substance with the Father And he ingenuously confesseth that it was generally believed that Eustathius was deposed at Antioch for adhering to the Nicene Faith and declaring himself against the Arian Party then prevailing in the East Who finding such success in their first attempt on Eustathius they next proceed against Athanasius the other great Champion of the Council of Nice They had conceived an inveterate hatred against him for his great zeal and activity in that Council but their rage brake forth after they heard that he succeeded Alexander in the See of Alexandria Eusebius of Nicomedia was his mortal Enemy who was removed to be near the Court though against the Canons yet he brake through all thereby to have opportunity to fill the Emperour's Mind with Jealousies and Suspicions of all those that opposed them and especially of Athanasius And Socrates gives the true Reason of the great Spite against Athanasius viz. that unless he were removed there was no hopes of the Arian Doctrine prevailing which he there confesses was the thing the Eusebians aimed at And now they thought such a Snare was laid for Athanasius which it was hardly possible for him to escape For upon Arius his Submission they advise Constantine to send him to Alexandria there to be received by Athanasius as the onely way to put an end to all the Disturbances of the Church Away goes Arius with the Emperour's Command to Athanasius Who according to their imagination refusing to admit him being anathematized by the Council as the first Broacher of a dangerous Heresie they easily exasperated the good Emperour against him as a seditious and turbulent Person and so plied him with one Accusation upon another that at last Constantine sent for him to appear before him upon an Information against him of no less than Treasonable Practices But upon a full hearing of the Matter by the Emperour himself he was acquitted and sent back with Marks of his Favour and vindication of his Innocency in an Epistle to the People of Alexandria part of which is extant in Sozomen and Theodoret but at large in Athanasius One would think this should have discouraged his Enemies from any farther Prosecution of him but these Eusebians were Men of restless ambitious implacable Spirits that scrupled no means to compass their ends which they thought they could never doe unless they could blast the Reputation of Athanasius To this end they laid a most malitious design against him First they draw in the Meletian Party in Egypt to join with them who hoped to get their ends one upon the other afterwards but at present they were willing to join together against their common Enemy for so Athanasius was accounted by them And Eusebius promised the Meletians great favour at Court if they would manage the business against Athanasius which they undertook and by their means so many Complaints were brought against Athanasius to the Emperour that he was forced for the general Satisfaction to appoint a Council at Tyre which was according to the Eusebians desire where things were managed with so little regard to Justice or common Honesty that after he had plainly cleared himself as to the main Accusations he yet found they were resolved to condemn him and therefore he privately withdrew from thence to the Imperial Court to acquaint the Emperour with the horrible Partiality there used Upon this he writes a very smart Letter to them and requires them to come speedily to him to give him an account of their violent Proceedings They send a select Number of their Party to Court with Eusebius of Nicomedia in the Head of them who there quit all the Accusations brought against Athanasius at Tyre and start a new one which touched the Emperour in a very tender part viz. That he had threatned to hinder the bringing Corn from Egypt to Constantinople which was in effect to threaten the starving his beloved City which nettled the Emperour so much that it transported him beyond his usual Temper and immediately he gave order for banishing Athanasius into Gaul Not long after Constantine died but before his death saith Theodoret he gave order for the recalling Athanasius to the great regret of Eusebius of Nicomedia then present Let any one now judge whether in Constantine 's time the Arian Faction were wholly supprest and whether Eusebius and his Party were men that onely pretended to Prudence and Moderation Who made use of the most malitious unjust abominable means to suppress the chiefest Opposers of the Arian Faction What will not such men say to serve a turn who dare to tell the World That the Eusebians were no less Enemies to the Arians than to the orthodox and that it is a great and common Mistake that Eusebius was the ringleader of the Arian Faction If it be a Mistake others have it from Athanasius and it is hard to believe that man ever read Athanasius his Writings who dare say the contrary All the Bishops of Egypt in their Synodical Epistle from Alexandria charge the Eusebians with a restlese desire to promote Arianism and affirm that their malitious prosecution of Athanasius was for no other
hath said We are not born to be judged but we are judged before we are born According to which Doctrine saith Faustus There can be no Equity in the day of Iudgment It hath been a great Question among some Learned Men whether there were any Persons who drew ill Consequences from Saint Augustine's Doctrine and were therefore opposed by Faustus and others or whether it were the mere Doctrine of St. Augustine that was so opposed by them and urged with those Consequences as following from it I see no Reason to deny that the Semipelagians did charge the Followers of St. Augustine with the same things which are made the Opinions of those who are called the Predestinatian Hereticks by Sigebert Gennadius Hincmarus and others But yet that there were certain Persons who did own such bad Consequences as the overthrowing the Liberty of Man's Will and the Necessity of our Endeavours will appear from these two Reasons 1. St. Augustine's Doctrine was so misunderstood by some in his Life time as appears by the Controversie amongst the Adrumetine Monks The Case was this Florus one of that Society going to Vzala a City near Vtica between Hippo and Carthage where Euodius was then Bishop a Friend of St. Augustine's there met with St. Augustine's large Epistle to Sixtus against the Pelagians which being sent home and Florus himself going to Carthage before his return they were fallen into great Heats upon the Occasion of that Epistle Some of them as St. Augustine himself saith did so preach up the Grace of God as to deny Free-will and consequently to say That God in the day of Iudgment would not render to men according to their Works Others said That our Free-will was assisted by the Grace of God that we may know and doe the things that are right That the Lord when he comes to render to every Man according to their Works may find our Works good which he hath prepared that we may walk in them And they saith he who judge thus do judge rightly Therefore those who thought otherwise did mistake his Doctrine For as he saith If there be no Grace there can be no Salvation If there be no Free-will there can be no day of Iudgment To what purpose is all this if some of these did not so misunderstand his Doctrine as to overthrow all Liberty of Will in Mankind And so Euodius in his Answer to those Adrumetine Monks shews That there is still Free-will in us but wounded by the Fall and onely recoverable by the Grace of Christ. Jansenius grants that they did misunderstand St. Augustine 's Doctrine thinking that Free-will was wholly destroyed by it And that no Man ought to be reproved when he doeth amiss but that others ought to pray that he may have Grace to doe better But the President Mauguin will not allow this For he saith That St. Augustine was at first falsely informed of the state of the Controversie among them by Cresconius and Felix But after Florus his coming he found they were Semipelagians who misunderstood his Doctrine But to what purpose then doth St. Augustine take such pains to prove even in the Book he wrote after the coming of Florus That there is Free-will still left in Mankind Liberum itaque arbitrium confitendum nos est habere ad malum ad bonum faciendum Not so as to exclude the necessity of Divine Grace as he proves at large but yet in such a manner as to shew its consistency with Divine Commands and the just Reproof and Punishment of those who doe amiss Which shews plainly That he thought there were some still who misinterpreted his Doctrine not barely to object against it but to make ill use of it Therefore Noris had no Reason to conclude that the Errour of the Adrumetine Monks was Semipelagianism 2. It appears evidently from the Case of Lucidus and the Councils of Arles and Lyons I grant that the Objections mentioned by Prosper and Hilary were made by the Semipelagians and not by any Predestinatian Hereticks at that time in Gaul and therein Sirmondus was certainly mistaken as he was likewise when he saith that the Epistle of Celestine was against the latter and not against the former But it appears by Faustus his Epistle to Lucidus that there were some who did so assert Predestination as to make all Mens Endeavours vain and useless And this dangerous Errour he renounced in his Recantation delivered to the Council of Arles Mauguin is very hard put to it when he saith That all these things were the mere invention of Faustus whom he makes to be Countreyman with Pelagius and Coelestius and to have sucked in the Poison of Pelagianism with his Milk He grants that he was famous for his Wit Eloquence and Philosophy But especially for a profound cunning which Isidore mentions in him From whence he endeavours to prove by many Arguments That these Councils and Epistles were all forged by Faustus But he is so far from persuading Learned Men to be of his Mind That Noris himself confesseth he can never assent to it And although it be looked on as part of the cunning of Faustus That he designed to convey his Books so privately to his Countreymen the Britains as appears by the Epistle of Sidonius Apollinaris to him yet it is utterly incredible that he should forge two Councils and set down the Names of several Bishops as present in them with whom Sidonius Apollinaris was particularly acquainted and yet he not discover the Cheat and Imposture But the Jansenists yield that both those Councils were held about Anno Domini 475. But they say that the Bishops were partly Semipelagians partly deceived by Faustus who was so And Noris doth not deny that there were other Persons who were then charged with those Opinions which Lucidus held But he saith they were not many nor considerable enough to make a Sect And that they did not willingly yield those Consequences But not knowing how to answer the Semipelagians they were forced to assert them Which their Adversaries therefore charged them with as their own Opinions Which seems no improbable Account of those called Predestinatians It cannot be denied that Faustus his Books were severely censured after his death not onely by the Scythian Monks at Constantinople among whom Joh. Maxentius was the chief but by the African Bishops who were then Exiles in Sardinia by whom Fulgentius was employ'd to write against them But Possessor one of the African exiled Bishops being then at Constantinople and finding great Heats about Faustus his Books sends to Pope Hormisdas to know his Judgment about them Which he did at the request of Vitalianus and Justinianus two of the greatest Men in the Emperour's Court. He returns a cautious Answer as to Faustus Which by the way shews how little Credit is to be given to the Decree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Books for therein Faustus his Books are
this time by the Authours he quotes such as the Poly-chronicon of Ranalphus Higden the Polycraticon of Roger of Chester who both lived in the fourteenth Century And Maculloch who transcribed and inlarged it lived saith Dempster Anno Dom. 1482. For it appears by the Preface Debitor sum fateor c. That John Fordon who is there called a Presbyter and no Monk finished no more than five Books of the Scoti-chronicon But left the Materials to make up the rest And that Fordon's own Work was but lately done before Maculloch undertook to finish and inlarge it who professes himself a Disciple of Fordon 's And distinguishes his own Additions from Fordon's Copy by putting in the Margin Scriptor Autor But Dempster makes Maculloch Scoti-chronicon and Fordon three several Authours which is a Sign he never saw them Mr. Camden takes notice how much the later Scotish Historians are beholding to Fordon 's diligence And therefore out of him I shall give a short Account of the Scotish Antiquities And then shew how far Major Hector Boethius and Buchanan differ from him For Lesly doth very faithfully contract Hector where Buchanan was ashamed to follow him as will appear by what follows There was saith Fordon One Gaithelos Son of Neolus one of the Kings of Greece who having displeased his Father was banished his Countrey and went into Egypt where he was married to Scota the King's Daughter But he quotes another Chronicle which saith that he was sent to the assistence of the King of Egypt against the Ethiopians Who gave him his onely Daughter Scota to Wife And the Legend of St. Brendan to the same purpose And another Chronicle which makes him to be Grandchild to Nimrod who was driven into Egypt and there married this Scota However they differ in lesser Circumstances they agree in the main Point For Scota he must have or else the Name of Scotia would be quite lost After the destruction of Pharaoh in the Red Sea Gaithelos is chosen King But Discontents arising he and his Wife Scota with their Company put to Sea and made Westward But after many Difficulties they landed in Spain where after the Conquest of the Inhabitants he built the City Brigantia But being wearied out with continual Wars he sent some of his Company to Sea to find out an Island without Inhabitants upon discovery whereof they returned to Gaithelos Who soon after died and charged his Children and Friends to go thither And accordingly his Sons Iber and Imec went to take Possession of this Island which from him was called Ibernia and from his Mother Scotia Which Name was after given to part of Britain Because the Inhabitants of the other Island settled there saith Maculloch in his Additions to Fordon as appears by the affinity of their Language and Customs which saith he continues to this day In Spain some of that Race abode saith Fordon out of an old Chronicle 240 years Then arose a King whom he calls Micelius who had three Sons Hermonius Partholomus and Hibertus whom he sent into Ireland with a great Army The eldest returned to Spain But the other two continued there Afterwards Simon Brek with his Company made a third descent into Ireland who sprang from Hermonius and carried along with him the Marble Chair in which their Kings were wont to sit and which Gathelus brought out of Egypt as some think but others say Simon drew it up from the bottom of the Sea with an Anchor in a great Tempest and therefore was preserved as a precious Relict And he took it as a Presage of his Kingdom which was to continue wherever that Stone was as the Southsayers said From Ireland Ethachius Rothay a Descendent from Simon Brek took possession of the Island Rothsay And many Scots associated with the Picts in the Northern parts of Britain But being hardly used and having no Head Fergus the Son of Fercard or Ferard being descended of the Royal Family went over and took upon him the Government of them Which he saith was before Christ 330 years in the time of Alexander the Great who carried the Fatal Chair into Scotland and was crowned in it Some time after him succeeded Rether whom Bede calls Reuda who endeavour'd to inlarge the Borders of the Scots in those Parts and fixed himself in that which from him was called Retherdale but since Rydisdale And this he makes the Second coming of the Scots out of Ireland After this he tells how the Kings of the Britains of the Scots and the Picts lived very lovingly together till Julius Caesar disturbed them all who he saith went to the very Borders of Scotland And there sent Letters to the Kings both of the Scots and Picts who both returned Answers in Latin although but the Chapter before he saith The very Britains had never heard of the Name of the Romans But it happen'd That Caesar hearing of the Revolt of the Gauls made a speedy return out of those Parts Then he relates the bloudy Wars of the Scots and Picts against the Britains and how Fulgentius Head of the Britains joined with the Picts and Scots against Severus and killed him at York And so proceeds in the Story of Carausius and Maximus and their Wars with the Scots and Picts till he comes to Fergus II. With whom he begins his Third Book And between the two Fergusses he reckons Forty five Kings But he confesses he cannot distinguish the times of their Reign as he can do those from Fergus II. And he gives this considerable Reason for it Nam ad plenum Scripta non reperimus i. e. He could not find any full Account of them in any ancient Annals or Records And therefore it ought to be considered from whence Hector Buchanan and Lesly should be able to give such a particular Account of the Reigns of those Kings which were wholly unknown to Fordon This is the short Account of what Fordon delivers about these Remoter Antiquities of the Scots Joh. Major confesseth That the Scots were derived from the Irish which he saith is plain by the Language For in his time half the Nation spake Irish and before that time more And so he tells the Story of their coming from Spain of the City Braganza of Iberus and his Mother Scota and then repeats the Tradition of Gathelus as Fordon relates it But very honestly saith That he looks on that part of it about coming out of Greece and Egypt as a Fiction And very probably conjectures it was done because the Britains derived themselves from the Trojans Which was subtily done of the Scots to claim Kindred rather with the Conquering Greeks than the subdued and banished Trojans All that Major asserts is That the Irish came out of Spain and the Scots out of Ireland And the Story of Simon Brek he rejects as a Fable And he makes the
And that shall be concerning the Kingdom of the Picts because we are told This is the way to end the vexatious Questions about them being taken out of the most authentick Records of Ireland which are of such irrefragable Authority That some are persuaded had they been known to Camden he would never have disputed the matter And so I think too But this irrefragable Authority is that of the Psalter of Cashel From whence we are instructed in these Particulars 1. That the Picts served in Thracia under one Policornus a King of that Countrey where their General Gud took away the King's Life to prevent an Attempt on his Daughter And did not Brutus serve King Pandrasus with his Army not far off in Greece And methinks Pandrasus is as good a Name for a King of Greece as Polycornus for the King of Thrace But where are either of them to be met with elsewhere 2. That upon this the General and his Army fled the Countrey roamed up and down at Sea till they came to Gaul and there they founded the City of Pictavia This is just Geffrey For Brutus came to Gaul too and there fought with Groffarius King of the Picts and founded the City of Tours which had its Name from Turonus Brutus his Nephew 3. That upon the same Occasion they were forced to leave Gaul and to go for Ireland as Brutus did for Albion where they were entertained to fight with the Britains Who it seems made very early Invasions upon Ireland which still agrees with Geffrey's History 4. The Story of the Advice of Trosdan the Pictish Magician for the Irish Army to bath in the Milk of 150 White Crumple-horned Cows as an effectual Antidote against the envenom'd Arrows of the Britains and the strange Success upon it is hardly to be matched in Geffrey 5. That the Picts growing insolent were forced by Herimon to retire to the Northern Parts of Britain Onely with three Irish Women whatever Bede saith of more or how differently soever he relates the whole Story of the Picts For what is Bede's a poor Monk's Authority to King Cormach's 6. That from Cathluan Son to Gud there was a constant Succession of Kings of the Picts in that Countrey But not more exact than the Succession of British Kings from King Brutus And now I leave the Reader to judge whether Geffrey be not hardly dealt with when such Authours are preferr'd so much before him We now return to the farther Account which the Irish Antiquaries give of their own Antiquities 4. We are then to understand that besides the Race descended from Nemedus there was another called Clanna Gaoidhel or Posterity of Gathelus concerning whom these things are affirmed 1. That he was descended from Niul a younger Son to Feanusa Farsa King of Scythia who travelling into Egypt had a Countrey there given him by Pharaoh Cingeris called Capacyront I suppose in the old Egyptian Language who was married to Pharaoh 's daughter called Scota Whereas the Scotish Antiquaries do peremptorily affirm it was Gathelus himself was married to her But we ought not to forget that this Scythian King had a celebrated School on the Plain of Sennaar and one Gaodel being there employ'd to compose or refine the Irish Language called from him Gaodhelc or Gaodhlec This is a Strain beyond Geffrey who never thought of bringing the British Language from the Plain of Sennaar 2. That Gaodhel 's Posterity continued in Egypt till the time of his Grandchild Sruth and then being forced thence they landed in Creet where he died And his Eldest Son Eibhir Scot went into Scythia where one of his Descendents killed Restoir the King of that Countrey and was forced with his Company to the Caspian Sea and landed in an Island there just like Geffrey's Largeâ—ia where Brutus landed But they went from thence to Caronia another Island in the Pontick and from thence to the North end of the Riphean Mountains a pretty kind of Compass And here instead of Diana's Oracle to Brutus an old Druyd told them they should never fix till they came to the Western Island and so they removed to Gothia and in the eighth Generation they went to Spain And doth not this exceed the Story of Brute in the great Probability of it which their latest Antiquary knows not what to make of It is certain whoever invented it designed to go beyond the Authour of the former But this is not all For we are told farther from the same Authentick Irish Annals 3. That Calamb called Milead Espain or Milesius the Spaniard great Grandchild to Bratha who brought them into Spain went back into Scythia and there served as General under Refloir King of the Scythians From whence upon Suspicions he fled into Egypt and there married Pharaoh 's Daughter called Scota And at last returned to Spain and there founded Braganza And here the Scotish Antiquities fall in But is it not a little improbable to have the same Scene acted twice over Two Gaodel's two Refloir's two Scota's twice passing to and fro after much the same manner We may well say as our Authour doth enough of these profound remote Antiquities For I shall not need now to add any thing about the eight Sons of this Milesius coming to Ireland And how the rest being killed the Countrey was divided between Eibhir and Erimthon and the former being killed the latter became the first Monarch of Ireland from whom descended 181 Monarchs of this Milesian Race which must depend on the Credit of their Annals of which I have already spoken But in short to give the true Account of these Fabulous Antiquities We are then to consider That when the Northern Nations began to have some smattering of the Greek and Roman Learning they were never satisfied till by one means or other they could deduce their Original from some of the Nations most celebrated in ancient Books Such were the Trojans the Greeks and the Egyptians As to the Trojans the Romans themselves had shewed the Way to other Nations For there are considerable Arguments to prove that neither Aeneas nor Ascanius ever came into Italy as may be seen in Dionysius Halycarnasseus Strabo and Festus in the Word Roma Hellanicus in Dionysius saith That Ascanius from whom Brutus is derived never left Phrygia But onely withdrew for a time to Dascylites near the Lake from him called the Ascanian and afterwards returned to Troy Strabo saith That Ascanius reigned at Scepsis near the Ruins of Troy and that his Posterity continued there a long time after with a Royal Title Festus shews that the old Authours were not agreed where Aeneas was buried Many were of Opinion that he lay buried in the City Berecinthia And some in Dionysius say he died in Thrace others in Arcadia But the Romans making it so great a part of their Glory to be descended from the Trojans Other Nations of Europe upon the Dissolution of the Roman
Empire would not seem to come behind them in this So Hunibaldus gives as formal an Account of the descent of the Franks from Antenor and as good a Succession of their Kings down from him with the particular Names of Persons and the time of their Reigns as either Geffrey doth of the British Kings from Brutus or Hector of the Scots from Fergus or the Irish Annals from Gathelus or Heremon And that this is no late Invention appears from hence That Aimoinus Ado Viennensis Abbas Vrspergensis Rorico Gaguinus Aeneas Silvius and others agree with Hunibaldus in the Substance of his Story And Vignier mentions several Diplomata of the ancient Kings of the Franks to prove the Authentickness of this Tradition And it is less to be wonder'd at that the Britains should pretend to be derived from the Trojans because of the mixture of the Romans and them together while Britain continued so long a Roman Province From whence I suppose the first Occasion was taken which continued as a Tradition among the Britains for a long time before it was brought into such a History as we find in Geffrey That the Tradition it self was elder than his time is certain For even those who despised Geffrey embraced it as appears by Giraldus Cambrensis And in the Saxon times this Tradition was known as is evident by the Saxon Poet mention'd by Abr. Whelock But Nennius his MS. puts it out of dispute That there was then a Tradition about the Britains coming from Brute but he could not tell what to make of this Brute sometimes he was Brito the Son of Ysicion the Son of Alan of the Posterity of Japhet And for this he quotes the Tradition of his Ancestours But this being uncapable of much Improvement or Evidence he then runs to Brutus the Roman and sometimes it is Brutus the Consul But that not suiting so well he then produces the Story of Aeneas and Ascanius and Silvius and the Prediction of the Magician that his Son should kill his Father and Mother she died in Labour and his Father was killed by him by chance However he was banished from Italy into Greece And from thence again banished and so came into Gaul and there built Tours having its Name from one of his Companions And from thence he came for Britain which took its Name from him and he filled it with his Progeny which continue to this day So that here we have the Foundation of Geffrey's History laid long before his time And Nennius his Account is mention'd by William of Malmsbury under the Name of Gesta Britonum And follow'd by Henry of Huntingdon and Turgott or Simeon Dunelmensis But when Geffrey's Book came abroad it was so improved and adorned with Particulars not elsewhere to be found that the generality of the Monkish Historians not onely follow'd but admir'd it and pitied those that had not seen it as they supposed as Ranulphus Cestrensis doth William of Malmsbury But there were some Cross-grained Writers who called it an Imposture as Gul. Newburgensis or a Poetical Figment as John Whethamsted But these were but few in Comparison with those who were better pleased with the Particulars of a Legend than the dryness of a true History But this humour was not peculiar to the Franks and Britains For the Saxons derived themselves from the Macedonian Army of Alexander which had three Captains saith Suffridus Petrus Saxo Friso and Bruno From whom are descended the Saxons Frisians and those of Brunswick And Abbas Stadensis adds That not onely the Saxons but those of Prussia Rugia and Holstein came from them Gobelinus Persona relates the Particulars as exactly as Geffrey or Hector or the Irish Annals do how they were left on the Caspian Mountains and wandred up and down just as Brutus and Gathelus did till they settled in Prussia Rugen and Saxony The Danes saith Dudo S. Quintin derived themselves from the Danai The Prussians from Prusias King of Bithynia who brought the Greeks along with him Onely the Scots and Irish had the Wit to derive themselves from the Greeks and Egyptians together We are now to sit down and consider what is to be said to all these glorious Pretences Must they be all allowed for good and true History If not what marks of distinction can we set between them They all pretend to such Founders as came afar off wandred from place to place consulted Oracles built Cities founded Kingdoms and drew their Succession from many Ages So that it seems unreasonable to allow none but our own And yet these Antiquities will hardly pass any where but with their own Nation And hardly with those of any Judgment in any of them But when all this is said every one will believe as he pleases But it is one thing to believe with the Will and another with the Vnderstanding To return now to the Irish Antiquities And it onely remains that we enquire How the Irish Antiquaries give an Account of their Nations coming into the Northern Parts of Britain And here is something which deserves Consideration viz. That they charge the Scotish Antiquaries with placing the time of Fergus I. 819 years before he landed in Britain For say they the Irish Monuments fix on Anno Dom. 498. as the time wherein Fergus Mor the Son of Erch whom the Scotish Writers call the Son of Ferchard with his five Brothers invaded the North of Britain To this purpose they produce the Testimony of Tigernacus who in his Annals saith Fergus Mor mhac Ercha cum gente Dalraida partem Britanniae tenuit ibi mortuus est This he writes about the beginning of Pope Symmachus which was about six years after the death of St. Patrick and very near the end of the fifth Century Besides another Irish Authour who writes of the Kings of Albany who were contemporary with the Monarchs of Ireland reckons twenty years between the Battel of Ocha and the going of the six Sons of Erc into Albany And the Annals of Vlster place the Battel of Ocha A. D. 483. so that Fergus his coming into Scotland could not be before the beginning of the sixth Century Gratianus Lucius saith that the Battel of Ocha wherein Oilliol Molt the Irish Monarch who succeeded Leogarius was killed was Anno Dom. 478. Which makes but five years difference Farther say they The Scotish Antiquaries make Reuda the sixth King after Fergus Whereas it appears by their Annals That their Monarch Conair had three Sons called the three Cairbres and the third was Cairbre Riada from whom that part of Britain was called Dal Riada or Dal Reuda But Conair was killed An. Dom. 165. and therefore this Reuda must be 300 years before Fergus The Old MS. cited by Camden makes Fergus to be descended from Conair with which as Archbishop Vsher observes the old Irish Genealogies agree But he saith Conair reign'd Anno
Name was Suana Daughter to Vectgistus a great Man about Hamburgh If he suppose Hamburgh then built he was extremely mistaken for it was onely a Castle erected on the Elb in the time of Charles the Great for preventing the Incursion of the Sclavi as appears by the Testimonies of Eginhardus and Albertus Stadensis After which he built a City and founded a Church there as Adamus Bremensis and Helmoldus agree Which City had its Name from a Neighbour Wood called in the Saxon Hamme as Lambecius saith in Ditmarse there are two Woods still called Suderhamme and Norderhamme But to return to Suffrifridus When according to Custome saith he a Colony of Frisians was to be drawn out Hengist and Horsa were their Captains and so went for old England or Anglen in Jutland where they were kindly received by means of Vetgistus and from thence took the opportunity of coming into Britain From hence he finds fault with Crantzius for making Angria in Westphalia to be Old Anglen and saith That Bede onely reckons the Mother's Line and not the Father's But his Occa Scarlensis on whom he chiefly relies is much such another Authour as Hunibaldus or Geffrey or Hector's Veremundus and therefore I shall say no more of him For I perceive scarce any of the Northern Nations wanted such Authours who endeavour'd to supply the defect of their Histories by their own Inventions So that it is necessary to lay open the pretended Antiquities in order to the setting forth the true The late Bishop of Munster a Person of far greater Judgment and Learning than Suffridus Petrus calls his Originals of the Saxons by no better a Title than of Canorae Nugae Sounding Trifles having no foundation in good Authority The Account he gives of the Saxons is this That they at first lived beyond the Elb where they had the same Situation with Tacitus his Angli whom he makes the farthest of the Suevi and therefore might well be the same People That in Bede's time they were come on this side the Weser and were settled in Westphalia and so they made a threefold Saxony of the Ostphali Angrivarii and Westphali who were called Olt-saxons by Bede and others Not that these were all originally Saxons But they bore the same Name being united in one common League So that as all the Germans which went into Gaul were called Franks so those who prevailed in Germany and went into Britain were called Saxons But Olaus Rudbeck after all hath found the Seat of the Saxons more North than Jutland where saith he The Name of the Saxons could never yet be found and where are no Mountains to be met with upon which Ptolemy places them on the back of the Cimbrick Chersonese but in that part of Sweden which lies between Vermelandia and Angermannia he hath found Norsaxen and Sodersaxen and Saxehundari and Saxewall and Saxen c. And in Smaland he hath discovered many Places taken from the Angles as Anglested Hundred Angloridia Anglodorpia Engelbeck c. But for our better understanding the Condition of that People who were called in by the Britains it will be most material to consider what is said of them by those who descended from them and lived here not long after their coming Bede who was himself a Saxon and lived nearest the time of the Saxons coming hither must be presumed to have understood best who they were and whence they came And although at the beginning he makes the Angles and Saxons all one saying the Angles or Saxons being invited by King Vortigern came hither in three Keels or long Boats at first yet when he adds that Numbers came afterwards he then distinguisheth them into three distinct sorts of People viz. the Saxons Angles and Jutes The Saxons he saith came from that Place which was then called Saxony The Angles from the Countrey called Angulus which remained desart to this day and lay between the Provinces of the Jutes and Saxons And much to the same purpose Fabius Ethelwerd onely he saith that they came de Saxonia Anglia atque Giota Saxony he saith was then called Ealdsexe and for Anglia he saith it lay between the Saxons and the Gioti whose chief Town in the Saxon Tongue was called Sleswic and by the Danes Haithaby But by this Account all these People who came hither to assist the Britains and after conquer'd them and possessed their Land must come out of that Chersonese called Jutland taking it in the largest extent not onely to the Eidore but from the Eidore to the Elb. For if the Angli came from about Sleswic and lay between the Jutes and the Old Saxons then the Jutes possessed all that part of the Chersonese which is now called the Northern Iutland and the Southern Iutland takes within it all that was possessed by the Angli which reached no farther than between Sleswic and Flensburgh which in the modern Maps is still called Angelen And so the Countrey lying between the Elb and the Eidore comprehending Hostein Dithmars and Stormar must be the Seat of the Old Saxons which by Adamus Bremensis and Helmoldus is called Nortalbingia and by Eginhartus Saxonia Transalbiana by Albertus Stadensis Transalbia where the Saxons remained in so great Numbers that Charles the Great could not totally subdue them till after a War of above thirty years as the foremention'd Authours assure us And Eginhartus whose Authority is unquestionable saith That Charles had no War more tedious or more fierce than that which he had with the Saxons And in the conclusion of it he was forced to remove 10000 Saxons on both sides the River Elb and to disperse them in several Parts of the Empire And as to that part of Jutland which Bede saith was left desolate to his time upon the remove of the Angli Adamus Bremensis gives another Reason for it saying That Jutland was the most uncultivated part of all Germany and the least fit for humane habitation being so barren and unfruitfull and so obnoxious to Pirates from both Seas But since the Saxons Angles and Jutes coming into Britain took Possession of so great a part of it as our Historians tell us viz. The Jutes Kent the Isle of Wight and part of Hampshire The Saxons Sussex Essex Middlesex the South part of Hartfordshire Surrey the other part of Hampshire Berkshire Wiltshire Dorsetshire Somersetshire Devonshire and part of Cornwall The Angles Norfolk Suffolk Cambridge the Midland and Northern Counties It deserves to be considered whether since there were so few Inhabitants then in Jutland and so many Saxons left behind there be not far greater probability that these should come from all the Maritime Coasts from the Rhine to Jutland than merely out of such an unpeopled Countrey as that was I do not deny the distinction of People that Bede mentions nor their coming originally out of Jutland or rather through Jutland But I think all Circumstances
Glassenbury I do not question that King Ina did found a Monastery there where before had been an ancient Church in the British times But I see no ground to believe that either Joseph of Arimathea or St. Patrick or St. David had ever been there But these were great and well sounding Names to amuse the People with and by degrees advanced that Monastery to so high a Reputation that the very Monks of other places were concerned to lessen the authority of this Tradition as is evident by the MS. Chronicle of St. Augustine's wherein the Monks of Glassenbury are charged with pretending to greater authority than they had reason for that Monastery being first founded by King Ina but they give out they had Land given by Arviragus a King of the Britains And even William of Malmsbury although when he writes the Antiquities of Glassenbury he seems firmly to believe Saint Patrick's being there yet when he comes elsewhere to speak of his being buried there he adds that cooling Expression Si credere dignum and takes not the least notice of Joseph of Arimathea and his Companions So much difference he thought there ought to be between writing the Legend of a Monastery and a true History And there he plainly affirms that King Ina was the first Founder of it To which Asserius agrees in an ancient MS. Copy of his Annals For A. D. 726. he saith Ina went to Rome and there died having built and dedicated a Monastery in Glassenbury But what Presumption was it to say He dedicated it if it were dedicated so long before by Christ himself as the Vision of St. David and the Glassenbury Tradition affirm I do not then deny that there was an ancient Church before Ina's time which after the Western Saxons became Christians grew into mighty Reputation but all the Succession of Abbats before either of Worgresius or Brightwaldus or others I look on as fabulous For Bede and others say Brightwaldus was Abbat of Reculver before he was Archbishop which is a good distance from Glassenbury But the first Abbat there was Hemgislus to whom Ina granted a Charter after him Beorwaldus to whom King Ina granted several Lands by Charters far more probable than this large one whose authority I have hitherto discussed Those Charters are short and the Style agreeable to those times and not one Word of Joseph of Arimathea or St. Patrick or St. David in any of them And those I believe were the original Charters of that Abbey But the Abbey being thus founded and well endowed then like a man that hath made his own Fortunes who pretends to be derived from some ancient Stock so this Monastery growing rich betimes saw it must be cast much behind in Place and Dignity unless it could lay claim to some greater Antiquity And for this the old British Church was an admirable Foundation And St. Patrick and St. David being two Saints of wonderfull esteem in Ireland and Wales they first set up with the Reputation of their being at Glassenbury the former lying buried there and the latter building a little Chapel The Monks finding the advantage of these Pretences made a farther step towards the advancement of their Monastery by giving out that their old Church was the first Church in Britain and that all Religion came from thence into other parts which by degrees gaining belief they at last pitched upon Joseph of Arimathea as the person who came first hither being a Man whose Name was every where in great esteem for the respect he shew'd to our Saviour's Body And him they thought they might safely pitch upon not being pretended to by any other Church But it was a considerable time before the Name of Joseph of Arimathea came to be mention'd not being found in any of the Saxon Charters which speak most to the advantage of Glassenbury as may be seen by those of King Edmond and King Edgar in the Monasticon But by the time of Henry II. the Tradition was generally received that the old Church at Glassenbury was built by the Disciples of our Lord and that it was the original Church of this Nation as appears by the Charter of Henry II. omitted in the Monasticon but printed by Harpsfield and the learned Primate of Armagh by which we see what Authority the Monks of Glassenbury had then obtained for not onely this Tradition is inserted in the Charter as a thing certain but a Repetition is there made of several other Charters as seen and read before the King which were undoubtedly counterfeit such as that of King Arthur and several others yet all these went down then and were confirmed by the King 's Inspeximus From this time the Monks of Glassenbury were triumphant and no one durst dispute their Traditions how improbable soever This Charter being confirmed by the Inspeximus of Edw. II. An. 6 7. of Edw. III. An. 1 6. and 1 Edw. IV. And from hence it grew to be the common opinion of the Nation and was pleaded for the honour of it in the Councils of Pisa Constance Siena and Basil of which the Primate hath given a full account and as things passed among them then Our Nation had as just Right to insist on their Tradition of Joseph of Arimathea as the Spaniards on that of St. James going into Spain for certainly one Tradition was as good as the other But having thus far examined the Authority of this Tradition I now come to consider the Circumstances of it And supposing the Testimonies to confirm it to have been of far greater Authority than I find them yet the very improbable Circumstances of the Story it self would be a sufficient reason for me to pass it over leaving every one to believe as much of it as he sees cause viz. 1. The Tradition of the Church mentioned by Eusebius Sophronius S. Chrysostome and Hippolytus Portuensis That Saint Philip continued Preaching in the Eastern parts about Phrygia and suffer'd at Hierapolis 2 The Eremitical course of their Lives so wholly different from that of the Apostles and other Disciples of our Lord in an Age of so much business and employment in Preaching the Gospel who went from one City and Countrey to another for that End 3. The building of the Church by a Vision of the Archangel and devoting it and themselves to the Blessed Virgin favours too grosly of Monkish Superstition to be near the time pretended 4. The Consecrating a Church-yard together with a Church in order to the burial of persons in it at that time is none of the most probable Circumstances and yet it is a material one Quod ipse Dominus Ecclesiam simul cum Coemeterio dedicarat Sir H. Spelman observes That the custome of compassing Churches with Church-yards was not so ancient And withall he adds That although the British Cities had Churches from the beginning of Christianity yet there were no burying places within Cities