from him To this the Irish Antiquaries reply that their ancient Annals do give a clear Account of this Fergus his Race and Time of going into Scotland but although they have the Succession of the Kings of Ireland long before and the remarkable things done in their time yet there is no mention at all of any Fergus or his Successours going to settle in Britain before this time They do believe that there were Excursions made by some of the Kings of Ireland before and I see no reason to question it even before the times mentioned by Gildas but they utterly deny any foundation of a Monarchy there by Scots going out of Ireland before the time of Fergus the Son of Eric and that 100 years later than the Scotish Antiquaries do place his coming for they make the first coming of this Colony to be A. D. 503. just the time which the Bishop of St. Asaph had pitched upon but according to their Antiquities Loarn the elder Brother was first King and he dying Fergus succeeded A. D. 513. and because his Race succeeded in that Kingdom therefore Fergus is supposed to have been founder of the Monarchy The Question now comes to this whether the Irish or the Scotish Antiquaries go upon the better Grounds For here the Advocate 's Common Places of Historical Faith Common Fame Domestick Tradition c. can determine nothing since these are equal on both sides and yet there is a contradiction to each other about a matter of Fact We must then appeal to the Records on both sides and those who can produce the more Authentick Testimonies from thence are to be believed The Advocate pleads that it is very credible that they had such because they had Druids and Sanachies and Monks as well as those in Ireland and that Columba founded a Monastery at Icolmkill and their Kings were buried there for a long time But where are the Annals of that Monastery Or of any other near that time To what purpose are we told of the Monasteries that were at Scoon and Paslay and Pluscardin and Lindesfern and Abercorn unless their Books be produced It is by no means satisfactory to say they had two Books their Register or Chartulary and their Black Book wherein their Annals were kept for we desire to see them of what colour soever they be and to be convinced by Testimonies out of them if they appear of sufficient authority But if these cannot be produced let them print the full Account of Irish Kings which the Advocate in his Advertisement saith he had lately seen in a very old MS. brought from Icolmkill written by Carbre Lifachair who lived six Generations before St. Patrick and so about our Saviour's time St. Patrick died about the end of the fifth Century being above 100 years old if the Irish Historians may be believed but how six Generations will reach from his birth to about our Saviour's time is not easie to understand For although the ancients differ'd much in computing Generations yet Censorinus saith they generally called 25 or 30 years by the Name of a Generation Herodotus indeed extends a Generation to 100 years yet even that will over doe here But who was this Carbre Lifachair who wrote so long since I find one of that Name among the Kings of Ireland about A. D. 284. and therefore I am apt to suspect that some body not very well versed in the Irish Language finding this Name among the Kings made him the Authour of the Book And the Irish Antiquaries speak with some indignation against those Scotish Writers who pretend to debate these matters of Antiquity relating to the Irish Nation without any skill in the Irish Language For this Debate doth not concern the Saxons in Scotland as all the Lowlanders are still called by the Highlanders and many of the best Families of their Nobility setled there in the time of Malcolm Canmoir after he had married the Sister to Edgar but it relating wholly to those who came out of Ireland the Irish Antiquaries think it reasonable it ought to be determined by the Irish Annals But will not the same objections lie against the Irish Antiquities which have been hitherto urged against the Scotish For why should we believe that the Original Irish were more punctual and exact in their Annals than those who went from thence into Scotland I answer that a difference is to be made concerning the Irish Antiquities For they either relate to what hapned among them before Christianity was received in Ireland or after As to their remote Antiquities they might have some general Traditions preserved among them as that they were peopled from Britain and Scythia and had Successions of Kings time out of mind but as to their exact Chronology I must beg leave as yet to suspend my Assent For Bollandus affirms that the Irish had no use of Letters till Saint Patrick brought it among them at which their present Antiquary is much offended and runs back to the Druids as the learned Advocate doth But neither of them have convinced me that the Druids ever wrote Annals All that Caesar saith is that in Gaul they made use of the Greek Letters which they might easily borrow from the Greek Colony at Marseilles but how doth it appear that they used these Letters in Ireland or Scotland Or that they any where used them in any matters of Learning which seems contrary to the Institution of the Druids who were all for Memory as Caesar saith and thought Books hurtfull to the use of it So that nothing could be more repugnant to their Discipline than the 150 Tracts of the Druids which St. Patrick is said to have cast into the Fire But I do not deny that they might have Genealogies kept up among them by their Druids and Sanachies and Bards who made it their business and so it was in Scotland as appears by the Highlanders repeating the Genealogy of Alexander III. by heart But the great Errour lay in fixing Times and Places and particular Actions according to the Names of those Genealogies And this was the true Reason of the mistake as to the Scotish Antiquities For the Genealogists carrying the Pedigree of Fergus the Son of Erk so much farther back some afterwards either imagined themselves or would have others think that all those mentioned before him were Kings in Scotland as Fergus was which by degrees was improved into a formal Story of forty Kings And I am very much confirmed in this conjecture because I find in the Genealogy in Fordon the descent of Fergus the Son of Erk from Conar the Irish Monarch as it is in the Irish Genealogies and that by Rieda called by them Carbre Riada by the other Eochoid Ried and several other Names are the very same we now find in the Genealogy of the Irish Kings as Eochoid Father to Erc Aengus Fedlim Conar the Son of Ederskeol and so up to Fergus
long before their own it were a vain thing to hope for any Credit unless they could produce some Testimonies nearer those times which might be of some weight if they were Authentick And this is the Reason why these Inventers of History have still given out that they met with some Elder Writers out of whom they have pretended to derive their Reports Thus Hunibaldus pretends as much to follow the Old Sicambrian Manuscripts of Wasthald for the remote Antiquities of the Franks as Geffrey doth the Old British Manuscripts either for the Succession of the British Kings or the first bringing of Christianity hither But which makes this matter yet stranger Nennius himself who sometimes passes under the Name of Gildas saith nothing of this Tradition where he speaks of the first receiving of Christianity in Britain and yet Bale saith of him That he collected his Writings out of the former British Historians such as Teliesin Melkin Gildas and Elvodugus and it is not probable he would have left it out if he had found it in any of them But Bale quotes one of these British Authours viz. Melkinus Avalonius for this Tradition about Joseph of Arimathea and Arviragus but withall he confesses him to be a very fabulous Writer Leland saith That he met with the Fragments of Melkinus in the Library at Glassenbury by which he understood that he had written something of the British affairs but more especially concerning the Antiquity of Glassenbury and Joseph of Arimathea Which saith Leland he affirms without any certain Authour and which himself could not approve not thinking it at all Credible that Joseph of Arimathea should be buried there but rather some Eremit of that Name from whence the mistake first arose And elsewhere when he speaks of the Glassenbury Tradition He saith That twelve Eremits are reported to have come thither with one Joseph in the Head of them but not be of Arimathea as he supposes But still the Testimonies that concern this matter are derived from Glassenbury insomuch that even the British Historian hath the name of Avalonius from thence But some make use of this Testimony however to prove the Antiquity of this Tradition since this Authour is said to have lived Anno Dom. 550. under King Vortuporius so Bale but Pits places him ten years later under Magoclunus They might as well have made him contemporary with Gildas Cambrius or to have been Secretary to Joseph of Arimathea when he wrote his Epistles for they have no more Evidence to shew for the one than for the other The truth is there was an old Legend which lay at Glassenbury which Leland saw and out of which Capgrave hath transcribed that part which concerns this matter from whom Bale took it But it is so grosly fabulous that even Capgrave himself whose Stomach was not very nice as to Legends put an c. in the middle of it as being ashamed to set down the passage of Abaddar a great man in Saphat and the hundred and four thousand which were buried with Joseph of Arimathea at Glassenbury Yet this sensless and ridiculous Legend is by some thought to be the British History which William of Malmsbury appeals to for the proof of this Tradition and which he found in the Libraries of St. Edmund and St. Augustin But Malmsbury having designed to set the Antiquity of Glassenbury as high as he could called that a British History which is now found to be written by an English Monk as Archbishop Vsher hath evidently proved having several times perused it in the Cotton Library there being the very same passage in it which Malmsbury quotes And that he was no Britain is most certain because he calls the Saxon his Mother Tongue and England his Countrey And yet after all there is not a word of Joseph of Arimathea or his Companions in it all that is said is That in the Western parts of Britain there is a Royal Island called Gleston large and compassed about with Waters full of Fish and having other conveniences of humane life but which was most considerable it was devoted to the Service of God Here the first Disciples of the Catholick Law found an ancient Church not built as was reported by mens hands but prepared by God himself for the benefit of Men and which by Miracles was shewed to be consecrated to himself and to the Blessed Virgin To which they adjoined another Oratory made of Stone which they dedicated to Christ and to St. Peter The question is Who are here meant by these first Disciples of the Catholick Law not Joseph of Arimathea and his Companions who are never mentioned by him and who are never said to have found a Church there built to their hands but he speaks of some of the first Saxon Christians in those parts who might probably find there such a low Wattled Church as is described in Sir H. Spelman a Remainder of the British Christianity in that Island And this Passage affords us the best light into the true Original of this Tradition which was after so much heightned and improved as the Monks of Glassenbury thought convenient for the honour and privileges of their Monastery That which seems most agreeable to Truth from hence is That in the latter times of the British Churches when they were so miserably harassed and persecuted by the Pagan Saxons they were forced to retire into places of most difficult access for their own Security and there they made them such Churches as were suitable to their present condition and lived very retired lives being in continual fear of their barbarous Enemies Such a place this Island of Avalon or Glassenbury was which might be of far greater request among the Britains because it was the place where King Arthur was buried for I see no reason to question that which Giraldus Cambrensis relates concerning the finding the Body of King Arthur there in the time of Henry II. with an Inscription on a Leaden Cross which in Latin expressed that King Arthur lay there buried in the Island of Avalon For Giraldus saith he was present and saw the Inscription and the Body which is likewise attested by the Historians of that time as Leland proves at large And the account given that his Body was laid so deep in the Earth for fear of the Saxons farther confirms That this was a place of retreat in the British times but not without the apprehension of their Enemies Invasion This Church according to the Inscription on the Brass Plate on the Pillar in Glassenbury Church was in length 60 Foot in breadth 26. But that Inscription as the learned and judicious Antiquary Sir H. Spelman observes was by the Character not of above 300 years Antiquity and savours very much of the Legend In it we reade That the Church was first built by Joseph and his Companions but was consecrated by Christ himself to the Honour of his Mother This
Edw. I. destroy'd all their ancient Histories how came Turgott's to be preserved He was Bishop of St. Andrew's in the time of Malcolm III. and Queen Margaret whose Lives he wrote And whose History Hector saith he had So that not onely Turgott's History of the Church of Durham is preserved in the Cotton Library with his own Name written in an ancient Character the same that is printed under the Name of Simeon Dunelmensis with some Alterations as Mr. Selden hath shewed But if Hoveden be so much to blame as Leland saith for concealing what he borrow'd from Simeon Dunelmensis Simeon himself is at least as much to blame for assuming to himself the proper work of Turgott But it seems Hector had seen what he wrote in relation to the Scotish History And Bale and Pits say he wrote of the Kings of Scotland But Dempster saith he wrote onely the Annals of his own time i. e. I suppose the Lives of Malcolm and Margaret If so Hector mentions him to little purpose with respect to the Scotish Antiquities But however from the forementioned Authours Hector pretends to give an Account of the Institution of the Great Council by Finannus of the Order of the Druids and their Chief Seat in the Island Mona which he would have to be the Isle of Man to the great regret of Humphrey Lluyd who hath written a Book on purpose to disprove him and Polydore Virgil about it Of the Tyranny and violent Death of King Durstus Of the choice of Euenus his Kinsman to succeed him and his first requiring an Oath of Allegeance Of the Disturbances by Gillus his natural Son and his flying into Ireland And his Death by Cadallus And Euenus his setting up Edecus the Grandchild of Durstus with which he ends his Second Book In his Third Book he gives an Account of the Troubles from Ireland by Bredius a Kinsman of Gillus Of Cassibellan's Message to Ederus for Assistence against Julius Caesar And the Speech of Androgeus before the Council and Ederus his Answer and sending 10000 Men under the Command of Cadallanus Son to Cadallus Who with the British Forces quite overthrew Caesar by the help of Tenantius Duke of the Cambri and Corinei for which as we may easily conceive there was wonderfull rejoicing in Scotland And great Friendship upon it between the Britains the Picts and the Scots But next Summer they hear the sad News of Caesar's coming again And then the Britains refused the Scots assistence and it is easie to imagine what must follow the poor Britains were miserably beaten And Cassibellan yields himself to Caesar and Caesar marches towards Scotland but before he enters it he sends a more Eloquent Letter to them than that in Fordon And the Scots and Picts returned a resolute Answer But it seems Caesar had so much good Nature in him as to send a Second Message to the Scots which was deliver'd with great Eloquence but it did not work upon them For saith Hector had it not been for the Law of Nations they had torn the Messengers to pieces But it happen'd luckily that while Caesar was making Preparations to enter Scotland he received Letters from Labienus of the Revolt of the Gauls upon which Caesar returns having scarce so much as frighted the Picts and the Scots And here again Hector vouches the Authority of Veremundus and Campbell But notwithstanding Buchanan very wisely leaves all this out which Lesly believing Veremundus or rather Hector before Caesar keeps in But here Hector becomes very nice and critical rejecting the vulgar Annals which it seems were not destroy'd by Edw. I. which say that Caesar went as far as the Caledonian Wood and besieged Camelodunum and left there his Pretorian House which he used to travell with called Julis Hoff. But for his part he would write nothing that might be found fault with and therefore he follows Veremundus again That this was the Temple of Victory built by Vespasian not far from Camelodunum Onely the Inscription was defaced by Edw. I. Buchanan in the Life of King Donald saith This was the Temple of the God Terminus being near the Roman Wall It was a round Building made of square Stones and open onely at the top 24 Cubits in height 13 in breadth as Camden describes it Nennius saith It was built by Carausius in token of his Triumph But this looks no more like a Triumphal Arch than Caesar's travelling Palace And therefore Buchanan's opinion seems most probable since Hector saith That there was within it a Stone of great magnitude which was the Representation of the God Terminus especially if the hole in the top were over the Stone as it was in the Capitol at Rome Then follow the wicked Life and tragical End of Euenus III. the good Reign of Metellanus and his Friendship with Augustus which he goes about to prove from Strabo But he had better kept to Veremundus After him succeeded Caratacus born at Caractonium a City of the Silures saith Hector and that he might be sure to confound all he saith his Sister Voada was married to Arviragus King of the Britains But he divorced her and married Geuissa a Noble Roman upon which Caratacus joined the Britains against the Romans and was at last beaten by them and betrayed by Cartumandua his Mother-in-law who after his Father's death was married to Venusius and was by Ostorius carried in Triumph to Rome from whence he saith he returned to Scotland and remained to his death a Friend to the Romans After Caractacus Corbred his Brother was chosen King who joined with Voada against the Romans And partaking of her misfortune returned into Scotland and there died His Sons being under Age Dardannus succeeded Who designing to destroy the right Heirs of the Crown was himself taken off And thereby Way was made for Galdus the true Heir to succeed Who was the same saith Hector with Tacitus his Galgacus and he confesses was beaten by Petilius Cerealis This King Buchanan thinks was the first of their Kings who fought with the Romans What becomes then of the Credit of Hector and Veremundus from whom we have such ample Narrations of their engaging with the Romans so long before From hence it is plain that Veremundus his Authority signified nothing with him And yet he follows Hector where he professes to rely upon his Authority For Buchanan evidently abridges Hector as to the Scotish Affairs leaving out what he found inconsistent with the Roman History Hector begins his Fifth Book with the short Reign and dolefull End of Luctacus Galdus his Son who was succeeded by Mogallus his Sisters Son who continued for some time a brave Prince but at last degenerating was killed by his Subjects After him Conarus his Son who was confined for ill management and the Government committed to Argadus Upon his death the Kingdom fell to Ethodius Nephew to Mogallus who was strangled in his Bed by an Irish Harper And so was Satrael that succeeded him
successions and the settlements of the Neighbour Nations together and then with great impartiality to deliver his judgment but by no means to espouse any particular Interest as though he were retained on that side Which he plainly discovers if he appear resolved to maintain one side against the strongest evidence and to cry down the other in an ignominious and reproachfull manner as though nothing but particular Piques and Animosities or which is far worse ill Will to the Government could lead Men into such debates nay as though it were a degree of Lese-Majesty as it is termed to call in question some very remote and very uncertain Traditions about the first Succession of the Kings of a Neighbour Nation This I have particular reason to take notice of from the usage the very learned and judicious Bishop of St. Asaph hath lately met with in this kind merely because in his late excellent Book he rejects the long Succession of Kings from Fergus the Son of Ferquard from the time of Alexander 's taking of Babylon which he doth chiefly on these two grounds 1. Because he proves from good Authorities in his Book that the Scots could not be so early setled in Britain 2. Because those Scotish Historians who have asserted it are not of sufficient Authority to be relied upon which he shews at large in his Preface Now upon this occasion His Majesty's learned Advocate in Scotland hath been pleased to think it a part of his Duty to answer this part of the Bishop's Book not without some kind of sharpness and unhandsome Reflexions on a Person of his Character and Merit but none like this That he admires that any of the Subjects of Great Britain did not think it a degree of Lese-Majesty to injure and shorten the Royal Line of their Kings But there is more Reason to admire at the strangeness of this Accusation unless it were intended to shew that he could as well prosecute as write against the Bishop by virtue of his Office for disputing their Antiquities As though the fundamental Constitution of the British Monarchy were at all concerned in the Credit of Hector Boethius for upon it as I shall presently shew the main stress of this matter doth rest But because these are dangerous insinuations and may as well be urged against some part of the following Book I shall here make it clear how very unjust and unreasonable they are For it is not the Antiquity of the Royal Line which is in dispute but the Succession of it in such a Place the Irish Antiquaries carrying the Succession much farther back than Hector Boethius or Lesly or Buchanan do And therefore they charge others far more with shortning the Royal Line making it to begin with Fergus when they derive it long before by a continued Succession from Simon Brek and Herimon and Gathelus who they say was but six Descents from Japhet But if there be any degree of Lese-Majesty for I am very unwilling to put these hard Words into proper English in those who debate any thing wherein the Honour of the Royal Line is concerned let them clear themselves of it who lay the foundation of the Monarchy in the Election of Fergus For that is truly the State of the case those who contend so earnestly for the Succession of the Royal Line from Fergus the Son of Ferchard placing his Title to the Monarchy in the choice of the Heads of the Tribes which will appear from the Words of Hector Boethius who is in truth the main support of all this Tradition For although Fordon doth mention the Succession of many Kings from Fergus the Son of Ferquard to Fergus II. yet he professes he could find nothing particular concerning them although he quotes several Chronicles and we are told he had the View of their Annals such as they were of Paslay Scoon and other Places He names indeed 45. Kings but he desires to be excused as to the several times of their Reigns for he had not met with them written at large but from the time of Fergus II. he promiseth to be very distinct and particular Yet after him comes Hector Boethius of whom the learned Advocate tells us that Erasmus said he could not lie which comes very near to Infallibility in matter of Fact and he is as distinct and particular in the first Succession as he is in the second From whence comes this mighty difference Of this he informs us from Hector Boethius himself and can we have a better Authority than his that could not lie That he had several Books from Icolmkill which he followed in writing his History I cannot now enter upon the consideration of the Authority of these Books of which afterwards but as far as yet appears it depends upon the Credibility of Hector But that which I am now to shew is that if Hector Boethius his Authority be allowed those who lengthen the Royal Line doe more injury to the Monarchy than those who shorten it For the first Account he gives of it is this That the Scots in Britain being pressed by the Picts and Britains they sent over into Ireland for assistence Ferquard sent his Son Fergus with Supplies who saith he left it to the choice of the Heads of the Tribes what Government they would have whether a Monarchy Aristocracy or a Commonwealth and they pitched upon a Monarchy and made Fergus their King which he saith was just 330 years before Christ's Nativity After which he sets down Fergus his owning that he received his Authority from the People and their Fundamental Contract to adhere to him and to his Line which if he may be believed was ingraven in Marble Tables and then the Agrarian Law follow'd And which is very observable the first Design we find laid for altering the Succession of the Crown and excluding the next Heir is in Hector Boethius his account of the immediate Successour to Fergus the Son of Ferquard For notwithstanding the binding Oath to the Posterity of Fergus yet immediately after his Death he saith Feritharis was chosen King although Fergus left Ferlegus his Son and Heir and not onely so but a Law saith he was past excluding the next Heir from any right to Government till he attained to such an Age. The effect whereof was that Ferlegus attempting to recover his Right from Feritharis was banished and utterly excluded Hector himself confesses he was at just Age when he demanded the Crown but he was put by and severely rebuked quod injussu Patrum petiisset Regnum but he did it without the Authority of the Senate upon which they imprisoned him but he made his escape and fled first to the Picts then to the Britains and after Feritharis his Death Main was chosen to succeed This is the just and true account of this matter as it is delivered by Hector Boethius and after him by Lesly who speaks more plainly of Ferlegus his
Malcolm he takes no notice of four Kings they insert between him and David and where they put another Malcolm he placeth Henry and then they agree in William Alexander and his Son Alexander in whom the Genealogy begins and so runs backward in a lineal Ascent Now it deserves very well to be considered that this ancient Genealogist hath so much shortned the Succession as will bring the whole into a much less compass For the modern Historians have inserted more Kings in the second Race from Fergus the Son of Erk than are contained in the Genealogy from Fergus the Son of Ferquard to Fergus II. and so the whole Succession will stand within the same time that it now doth from Fergus the Son of Erk. And if the shortening the Royal Line be such an injury to it as the Advocate supposeth it is well for this ancient Genealogist that he lived so long since or else he might have had a cast of the Advocate 's Office Neither is the Authority of this Genealogist to be slighted by the learned Advocate since himself giving an account how their Tradition might have been and was preserved he brings this very instance of the Genealogy of King Alexander in the year 1242. before Fordon 's time and related so by him that his Relation cannot but be credited and so he repeats the beginning of it as it is in Fordon But if he had taken the pains to compare it he would have found how much it overthrew the Credit of their Historians For if this was the Way their Tradition was preserved then by this Way we are to judge of the Truth of their ancient Tradition and consequently we must reject those Kings whose Names are not preserved in this ancient Genealogy And to confirm this we have another said to be more ancient in Fordon which the Advocate attributes to Baldredus Abbat of Melros otherwise called Ealredus Abbat of Rhieval in his Lamentation of King David soon after his death who died A. D. 1151. But I confess I do not find that Fordon attributes this Genealogy to Baldredus for he saith he had it from Walter de Wardlaw Cardinal and the Bishop of Glasgow who lived in the time of Robert II. saith Lesly which helps to discover Fordon's Age And in this Genealogy the first part from David to Fergus is cut off with an c. but the other part from Fergus II. up to Fergus I. is preserved entire and except in the spelling of some few Names exactly agrees with the former Genealogy leaving out all those Kings which are omitted in the other But the latter Genealogy having been corrupted before Fordon's time he would not have it stand upon Record against him which caution he forgot when he came to Alexander III. But there is still a third Genealogy in Fordon which supplies in some measure the defects in that of King David and it is the Succession of Kenneth the first Monarch of Scotland the Picts being totally subdued by him and then he makes no more between them but Alphin and then Achai which seems to be truer than the other which calls Alphin's Father Ethas before him he places Ethfin called Ethafind in the other next him is Eugenius in the other Ethodac then Dongard the Son of Donwald Brek whereas in the other this Dongard is omitted before Donewald-brek in this Genealogy is Eugenius-bind called Occahebind in the other then Aidanus in the other Edanus then Gouran called there Cobren then Dongard and so we are come to Fergus the great and there is but one difference i. e. about Dongard in these Genealogies And this makes but 10 Kings between Fergus and Kenneth whereas the common Historians make 28. which is a very unreasonable Addition to their own most ancient Genealogies But if this were not done there would appear no probability that the first Fergus should have come into Scotland 330 years before Christ's Nativity Which the learned Advocate affirms in the very beginning of his Defence that all their Historians are agreed on And yet farther to confirm these Genealogies he tells us he had seen an old Genealogy of the Kings of the Albanian Scots agreeing with that mentioned at the Coronation of King Alexander II. and which has still been preserv'd as sacred there i. e. at Icolmkill I suppose or the Island Jona But it is observable that Hector mentioning the Coronation of this Alexander takes notice of the Highlander's repeating the Genealogy by heart and he carries it as far as Gathelus but sets down nothing at all of the particulars which he knew would by no means agree with his Catalogue of Kings so long before Christ. And to confirm all these Genealogies the Irish Genealogies in Gratianus Lucius agree with them in excluding so many Kings which Hector hath inserted to make the account of time seem probable Onely they make Fergus the Son of Erk to be the first who carried the Scots from Ireland into Albany and the Ancestours before to have lived in Ireland and to have been derived from the Monarchs there But when Hector Boethius found 330 years before Christ pitched upon by Fordon for the Scots coming into Scotland with so much punctuality that he saith it was in the sixth year of Alexander wherein he killed Darius and took Babylon he thought it by no means fit to omit it but to it he adds the very year of the World and of the building of Rome and how long it was after Brutus his first coming to Britain which are all great Confirmations of the Truth of this Account But Fordon quotes no Authour for this wild computation onely he subjoins a passage out of the Legend of S. Congall which mentions the coming of Fergus the Son of Ferquard out of Ireland into Britain and after he mentions Rether for one of his Successours the same he saith with Bede's Reuda Suppose all this be granted yet what shadow of proof is there that Fergus came into Scotland so long before Christ's Nativity Fordon confesses he knew not how long any of those Kings after Fergus reigned how then came he to know so exactly the time of their coming What certain Note or Character of time had they to help them in their Calculation If they could produce any such and be able to adjust the times of the Succession of their several Kings by them there might be a great deal said for this pretended Antiquity but when it is at the same time confessed they had no such thing how could they satisfie any reasonable enquirer into these Antiquities Things standing thus and Hector Boethius with the help of his Physician of Aberdeen who as Dempster saith was so very usefull to him in framing his History set about the rectifying and curing the Body of their Antiquities and endeavourd to bring it into better form and to fill up the vacuities of it and render it more agreeable to the Palates of that time
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
other Antiquaries and Criticks than they are by Scaliger this Argument will come to very little And yet Salmasius and the rest he mentions say much less than Scaliger Salmasius onely useth Scaliger's Criticism about the Scoto-Brigantes without adding any thing Lipsius unhappily calls Galgacus a Scot which was an improper expression as I have proved in the proper place because it is so evident from Tacitus that the Caledonians were not Scots unless it be taken for Scythians of which afterwards but by Scots here we mean such as came out of Ireland to settle in Britain and such Galgacus and his Souldiers were not And the like impropriety Bergier though a learned Antiquary fell into when he interprets the Caledonians by Scots but such as Dempster is frequently guilty of when he calls the Britains English because the English dwelt in Britain afterwards But improper expressions where they fall from learned Men by chance ought rather to be passed over with silence than made use of as Arguments unless those who use them go about to prove what is implied in them Sigonius his Name stands among the rest being indeed a learned Historian Antiquary and Critick but not one word can I find produced out of him in his whole Book What Baronius saith relaâ—es to the Conversion of the Scotish Nation and not to these Antiquities of which I have treated at large in the following Book Andr. Favin and P. Aemilius speak onely of an Alliance between Achaius King of the Scots and Charles the great and what is this to Fergus and the Succession of Kings for 330 years before Christ's Nativity which he saith in the beginning was applauded by all Historians Antiquaries and Criticks and as though this were not extravagant enough he saith afterwards that Baronius Scaliger Salmasius Lipsius Sigonius Favin and others of the first rank too many to be named have passionately defended their Antiquity and not onely sustained but praised their Histories Whereas not one of these produced by him speaks any thing to the matter in question But we hope to see these things better cleared in the third Part of Sir R. Sibbald's Scotia Antiqua where he has promised to give a particular account of the State of the Scots in Britain before they had Kings then under Kings from Fergus I. to Fergus II. and from thence to Malcolm Canmore If he doth clear these Parts of their Antiquities he will doe a great thing and for my part I shall be as willing to believe Fergus to have come into Britain in the time of Alexander as any time after provided there be sufficient Evidence to prove it which must be somewhat more convincing than his Majesty's Advocate hath been pleased to make use of but I remember Scaliger's Censure of Claudian addit de ingenio quantum deest materiae Therefore from the Testimony of Historians Antiquaries and Criticks I proceed to examine the Argumentative part of his Book and setting aside all common Places about Historical certainty Tradition common Fame c. I shall keep close to the point before us and examine the force and strength of his Reasoning which consists in these things 1. That upon the same Reason we question their Antiquities we may call in question the Roman Iewish Greek French Spanish Antiquities all which depended upon Tradition without Records for a long time This is indeed a material Objection for we ought not to give a partial Assent to some Antiquities and deny it to others if there be the same ground either to give or deny Assent to all But this must be examined 1. As to the Roman Antiquities he cites a passage in Livy in which he saith that the use of Letters was not then ordinary the onely certain preserver of the memory of things past so Livy's Words are to be understood rarae per ea tempora Literae una custodia fidelis memoriae rerum gestarum and not as the Advocate with too much art hath translated them that the best Records were the faithfull Remembrance of things past For if this were Livy's meaning why doth he complain of the want of the common use of Letters when he saith Tradition is the best way to preserve the memory of things Which is to make Livy speak inconsequently But he goes on saying that what Memorials were left by the High Priests or were in publick or private hands were most part destroyed in the burning of the Town He doth not say all were lost but the most part This Livy alledgeth to excuse the shortness and obscurity of his first Books for want of sufficient Records and he speaks like a very judicious Historian in it And when he gives an Account of the remote Antiquities of Rome he is far from confident asserting them but he speaks with great Modesty and Discretion about them saying that he would neither affirm nor deny them being rather built on Poetical Fables than any certain Monuments of affairs at that time that an allowance must be made to Antiquity which was wont consecrare Origines suas to make their beginnings as sacred and venerable as they could But as to such things he would be no Advocate either for or against them Then he proceeds to deliver the common Tradition about Aeneas his coming into Italy and Ascanius succeeding him but he cannot tell whether Ascanius the Son of Creusa or another the Son of Lavinia quis enim rem tam veterem pro certo affirmet Who can be certain in such remote Antiquities And yet at that time it was thought a great disparagement to the Royal Line to have it question'd whether it were the elder Ascanius because the Julian Family as Livy there saith derived themselves from him who was called Julus It is true Livy after this relates the Roman Antiquities down to the burning of the City when so many Records were lost but we are to consider that the Romans had certain Annals before that time and that some of them were preserved That they had Annals both publick and private appears by Livy's own Words who mentions both the Commentarii Pontificum and the publica privata monumenta and Cicero affirms that the Romans from the beginning had Annals made up by the Pontifex Maximus of the transactions of every year and these were publickly exposed in a Table in his House that the People might be satisfied about them and these he saith were called Annales Maximi which he adds were continued down to the time of Mucius Scaevola who was Pontifex Maximus about A. U. C. 623. These as Servius saith were after made up into 80 great Books and were the standing Monuments of their Antiquities And it is observable that the Authour of the Book de origine Gentis Romanae as Vossius and others take notice inserts several things as taken out of the Pontifical Annals which hapned before the building of Rome from whence they do justly infer that matters
particular Testimonies Now what is there parallel to these things in the present case Have they produced any such publick and sacred Annals written and preserved with so much care as the ancient Jews had Have they had a Succession of Prophets among them whose Books are preserved to this day with great Veneration without addition or diminution What mean then such strange Comparisons Can they produce any one Authour contemporary with Fergus I. and his Successours who mention that Succession As Josephus brings the Egyptian Phoenician Chaldean Writers to attest the Story of the Scripture 3. As to the Greek Antiquities he saith the Greeks could have no Records for many hundreds of years before they wrote And what follows but that therefore there is great uncertainty in the Antiquities of Greece till that time For which reason Varro that great and judicious Antiquary rejected two Parts in three of the Times of the Greeks the one he said was wholly in the dark for want of Records and the other Fabulous because as Josephus observes they had no publick Annals but their first Writers were Poets who minded to write rather things entertaining than true But we are of late told that this saying of Varro might hold as to the Greek Antiquities but it is unjustly applied by Camden to the Antiquities of other Nations for the utmost Eastern Nations the Chineses and the utmost Western the Irish have preserved their Antiquities far beyond the time which Varro allows for true History I grant Varro intended this chiefly for the Greeks who made the greatest noise with their Antiquities then and yet Varro himself as St. Augustine tells us began his Account of the Roman Antiquities with the Succession of the Sicyonian and Athenian Kings not as though he would deliver it for certain Historical Truth but as the most common received opinion And in the Fabulous times he might endeavour to pick out what Antiquities he thought came nearests to History As to the Chineses they are very remote from us and we have had different accounts of them as appears by comparing Gonsales Mendoza and Martinius together and of their Antiquities as delivered by the former a learned Man hath said that they seem to him like Manetho's Egyptian Dynasties However Scaliger thought fit to insert the Succession of their Kings in his Chronological Canons and makes the beginning of that Empire coincident with the end of the thirteenth Egyptian Dynasty but in his Notes upon it he complains of the want of farther information about them Which the World hath since in great measure received by Martinius both in his description of the Countrey and the first Decad of the History from the beginning of the Empire to the Nativity of Christ. But their way of preserving Antiquities was peculiar to themselves and therefore these cannot very well be made a Parallel for the Scotish or Irish Antiquities Martinius hath indeed given a very plausible Account of the remote Antiquities of China but in such a manner as shews that even the Chineses had a dark and fabulous time as well as the Greeks and he tells us that themselves acknowledge that before the Reign of Fohius they have no certain account of things because then they had no use of Letters but afterwards they look upon the Succession of their Kings as delivered down to them with great Fidelity But there are two things this certainty of their History depended upon 1. A fixed Rule for the computation of Times without which it is impossible any Nation should have an exact account of the ancient Succession of their Kings And herein lay the great accuracy of the Chineses that they were very early given to the finding out the best methods for calculation and they used a Cycle of 60 years 2670 years before Christ's Nativity and therefore Martinius magnifies the Chineses especially for their skill and exactness in the Succession of their Princes which it is impossible to give a certain account of without a fixed measure of time and therefore it hath been so often said that the Greeks had no certain History before the Olympiads 2. The Chineses did not suffer any Persons to write History that would but some of great Reputation were appointed after the Emperours decease to write his Life which being approved was allowed as the onely authentick History of him and these being put together made up their publick Annals which are preserved to this day For notwithstanding the Persecution of their Histories in the time of Chingus who endeavoured to suppress them that he might be thought the Founder of the Empire yet his Son opposing his design and many learned Men being banished upon it there were means used to preserve their Annals but Semedo saith they could never recover a perfect Account of the first beginning of that famous Empire Now before any other Nation can presume to vye with the exactness of the Chineses in their Antiquities they must first shew us what means they had for the computation of times by which we may judge of their Antiquity and Succession of their Kings and next they must give an equal Account of the Care taken time enough to preserve their History of publick Annals as the Eastern People and the Romans did For instance we are told from a late Irish Antiquary Geoffrey Keting that the Posterity of Gathelus and Scota or the Milesian Race settled in Ireland A. M. 2736. after the Floud 1086. after Moses passing the Red Sea 192. before Christ's Nativity 1308. from whence the Antiquity of the Irish Nation is said not to be parallel'd unless by the Chineses onely Here is a pretence to very great Antiquity and an appearance of exact Calculation but I onely ask by what Cycles the Irish proceeded when they began how they could adjust the time so well to the Age of the World or what other certain way they had which might be reduced to it If they had none all this might be onely Fancy and Opinion unless there were some Characters of Time fixed and certain by Eclipses and Astronomical observations or certain Periods of time or coincident passages which might connect the year of their descent into Ireland with such a year of the World or after the Floud If nothing of this kind be produced we must be excused if we do not yet think the Irish Antiquities parallel to those of China For if there be no such Characters of Time which may direct us in comparing one thing with another it is possible that there may be one or two thousand years difference in the Computation and yet neither able to confute the other For suppose I should say that the Posterity of Gathelus came into Ireland just 308 years before Christ's Nativity here is 1000 years difference That is a small matter you will say in so great Antiquity but as small as it is some account ought to be given of a thousand
printed But to return to Vossius who is not sparing in mentioning any of our MSS. Historians which he found well attested and particularly Aelredus Abbat of Rhieval who wrote the Life of David King of Scots But the Advocate tells us some news concerning him viz. that he was Abbat of Mailros which was called Ryval before King David 's time But Fordon expresly distinguisheth the two Monasteries of Rieval and Melros the one he saith was founded by King David A. D. 1132. and the latter four years after And in the Chronicle of Melros it appears that Richard was the first Abbat there to whom Waltheof succeeded Vncle to King Malcolm A. D. 1148. who succeeded King David A. D. 1153. After Waltheof William was Abbat of Mailros A. D. 1159. after him Jocelin A. D. 1170. In the mean time Aelredus dies Abbat of Rieval A. D. 1167. and Silvanus was chosen in his place From whence it is plain that the Abbies of Melros and Rieval were always distinct from their first foundation and that Alredus was never Abbat of Melros This Aelredus may be called a Scotish Historian for his Lamentation of King David extant both in Fordon and Elphinston but I can find nothing of his writing relating to the Scotish Antiquities I know he wrote a Chronicon which Boston of Bury who calls him Adelredus saith was deduced from Adam to Henry I. but if there had been any thing in it to their purpose those Authours who cite a great deal out of it relating to our Saxon Kings would never have omitted what had been much more material to their History Turgott is likewise mentioned by Vossius though a MS. Historian because he saw very good evidence for his writing some part of the Scotish History He lived saith the Advocate A. D. 1098. I grant that he is frequently cited by Fordon and Elphinston for the Acts of Malcolm and Margaret which he wrote but I can find no more out of him than out of Aelred as to their remote Antiquities although they seem to have left out very little of what Turgott wrote But I wonder how the Advocate came to discover Turgott to have been Arcshbishop of St. Andrews when Dempster could have informed him that there was no Archbishop of St. Andrews till 300 years after And he might have found in Fordon that there was no Archbishop of St. Andrews till after James Kennedy who was Bishop of St. Andrews A. D. 1440. and was Nephew to James I. but after his death Patrick Graham first obtained the Metropolitan Right to the See of St. Andrews but it was not quietly enjoyed till his Successour Will. Sheues came into possession of his place But there is in Fordon an account of the Succession of the Bishops of St. Andrews from the time of the expulsion of the Picts which is wholly left out in Elphinston and there Turgott is said to be consecrated Bishop A. D. 1109. and to continue there seven years St. Andrews was before called Kilremont as appears by Fordon who calls them the Bishops of St. Andrews de Kilremont Kil as appears by the Scotish Historians was a place of Devotion Kilruil was the Church of Regulus as Hector saith St. Andrews was called in the time of the Picts and Kilremont as being the Royal Seat and the principal Church for Remont is Mons Regis and from hence the Clergy of this Church were called Killedees from which title the fiction of the ancient Culdees came as the Bishop of St. Asaph hath truly observed These Killedees had the ancient Right of chusing the Bishop and were first excluded as Fordon saith by William Wishart A. D. 1273. and next by William Fraser after him by William Lamberton upon which William Cumyng Keldeorum Praepositus i. e. Dean of the Church appealed to Rome but was overruled there But the learned Primate of Armagh following Dempster too much calls him Auminus and yet Dempster quotes the Scotichronicon for it where it is plainly William Cumyng But that the Killdees were nothing but the Dean and Chapter of St. Andrews not onely appears by their Right of Election of the Bishop but by the exercise of the jurisdiction in the vacancy of the See which Fordon saith was in them I should not so much have insisted on this mistake of the Advocate in making Turgott Archbishop of St. Andrews if he had not so severely reflected on the Bishop of St. Asaph for making Fordon a Monk as though he did it merely for his own conveniency to shew him interested for the independency of Monks and Caldees from the Bishops I grant it was a mistake but not designed and a very pardonable one since Dempster saith some thought him a Monk and he could not find of what condition he was and yet he saith he read him and Vossius makes Joh. de Fordon a Monk in King John's time Authour of the Scotichronicon This Book of Fordon the Advocate saith was so esteemed that there were Copies of it in most of their Monasteries and he saith did agree with their ancient Annals which I think will appear by the precedent Discourse not to be much to the advantage of his Cause And so much for the Authority of their Annals and Historians from the Original Druids and Bards to Fordon and Elphinston Having thus gone through the most material points which I have not distinctly answered in the following Book there remain onely some few things which stand in need of being farther cleared As 1. The Testimony of Eumenius in his Panegyrick to Constantius from whence the Advocate proves that in the time of Caesar there was another Nation besides the Picts who then inhabited Britain and were a Colony of the Irish and these must certainly have been Scots The question is not whether there were not according to Eumenius Picts and Irish which the Britains fought with in Caesaâ—'s time just as Sidonius Apollinaris saith that Caesar conquer'd the Picts and Saxons in Britain which is such another Prolepsis as Sirmondus observes who makes the coming of the Scots into Britain after the Saxons and he was a judicious Critick and Antiquary but the true question is whether Eumenius affirms that those Irish then dwelt in Britain Yes saith Buchanan soli Britanni are to be understood in the Genitive Case and so these words relate to the Picts and Irish of the British Soil No saith the Bishop of St. Asaph they are to be understood in the Nominative Case and so they set forth the advantage in Constantius his Victory over a Roman Legion above that of Julius Caesar who fought onely with the Britains a rude People and accustomed to no other Enemies but Picts and Irish a half naked People The words are thus printed in the late Paris Edition after the comparing of several MSS. by Claudius Puteanus and therefore more correct than the Plantin Edition Ad hoc Natio etiam
quotes Ger. Vossius de Hist. Lat. who saith onely that Bale mentions a piece of his de Antiquitate Avalonica but he adds that Bale deserves no credit in Writers of great Antiquity But the person Cressy means or at least his Authour was another Gerard Vossius Dean of Tongres who published part of this pretended piece of St. Patrick among other ancient Writings which will have no great authority among considering men if they have no other Characters of Antiquity than this Charter of Saint Patrick However Mr. Cressy is pleased to call it a monument of the goodness of God towards this Nation so early in the very beginning of Christianity because therein mention is made of some Writings of St. Phaganus and Diruvianus wherein was declared that twelve Disciples of the Holy Apostles Philip and Jacob built the said ancient Church to the honour of the Blessed Virgin by the appointment of the Archangel Gabriel And moreover That our Lord himself from Heaven dedicated the said Church to the honour of his Mother As likewise That three Pagan Kings bestowed upon them twelve Portions of Land If this hold good it goes a great way towards the proving the ancient Tradition although Joseph of Arimathea be not mentioned But St. Patrick goes on and saith That in other Writings of a later date he found that Phaganus and Diruvianus obtained from Pope Eleutherius thirty years of Indulgence as himself likewise procured from Pope Celestine twelve years And towards the Conclusion he grants a hundred days of Indulgence to those who would clear the way to a certain Oratory there mention'd And to make all plain it begins with the Date Anno Dom. 425. in these Words In the Name of our Lord Iesus Christ. I Patrick the poor humble Servant of God in the four hundred twenty fifth year of the Incarnation of our Lord being sent by the most holy Pope Celestine into Ireland c. I confess this Charter offers very fair play towards the discovery of it's own Forgery by such open Marks and Characters as these For it is certainly known that in St. Patrick's time no such way of Computation was used from the year of our Lord. For Dionysius Exiguus writ his first Epistle to Petronius Anno Dom. 525. where he first mentions The reducing the Cycle to the years of Christ's Incarnation that People might be better acquainted with it after which it remained a great while in private use with the Paschal Cycle and was not publickly received saith Bucherius till about the time of Charles the Great Joachim Vadianus saith He never saw the Year of our Lord in any ancient Charters of which sort he had seen many Some observe That it was never used in Charters before the ninth Age and therefore the more subtile Pretenders to Antiquity always left it out Joh. Aventinus affirms that the use of it in Epistles and Charters was brought in by Carolus Crassus with whom Nic. Vignier agrees as to the Imperial Diplomata But it seems probable to have been brought into England before that time for in the Council at Celichyth Anno Dom. 816. Every Bishop was required to take an Account of the year of our Lord. And by some Charters in Ingulphus it appears to have been used here before it was used in France or the Empire but not long before the eighth Century and the first publick Acts we find it applied to were those of Councils as in that of Becanceld under King Withred Anno Dom. 694. But the same King doth not use it in the Years of his Reign The like Instances about Councils especially in the eighth and ninth Centuries are produced by Mabillon Who thinks That Bede was the first who brought it into the use of History But that could not be before Anno Dom. 725. at which time he began to write his History and he adds That from him by the means of Boniface it came into the use of the French Councils and Histories and at last of all publick Charters both in France and the Empire as well as here But from all this it appears that there is no Colour for this Charter of St. Patrick which reckons from the Incarnation a hundred years before Dionysius Exiguus first introduced that way of Computation Besides it cannot possibly agree with the time of St. Patrick's going first into Ireland for William of Malmsbury confesseth He was made Bishop by Celestine and sent by St. German into Ireland as an Apostle But it is on all hands agreed that Palladius was sent thither before him and Prosper who lived at that time fixeth the sending Palladius to the year wherein Bassus and Antiochus were Consuls which was Anno Dom. 431. The year of the first Ephesine Council So that this Charter of St. Patrick cannot be true no not although we allow the different Computation in Capgrave who reads it 430. But Alford Confesses both Malmsbury and the Glassenbury Antiquities have it 425. It is strange that Alford should say He found no Exception against the Credit of this Charter since even Capgrave himself mentions it not without doubt and Suspicion of the truth of it And his own Brethren Henschenius and Papebrochius deride his simplicity for believing it And among other Arguments they produce that of the mention of Indulgences against it which Name they Confess was not used for the Relaxation of Penance till the eleventh Century a very Competent time after the Date of this Charter The question is not as Mr. Cressy would put it Whether every Bishop or the Pope as Chief hath a Power to relax Penance But Whether the Name of Indulgences were then applied to such a Sense as this Charter uses it Which those learned Jesuites deny Add to all this that St. Patrick saith He obtained from Celestine twelve years of Indulgence which being understood of Glassenbury implies a plain impossibility For St. Patrick is said to retreat thither towards the end of his Life and Celestine dyed soon after his first sending into Ireland So that I need not to insist on the Style or the Names contained in this Charter to prove the Forgery of it it being so manifest by the Arguments already produced I now proceed to the Charters whereof there are several extant in the Monasticon The large Charter of King Ina seems to be most considerable and to favour the old Tradition as it makes the Church at Glassenbury dedicated to Christ and the Blessed Virgin to be the Fountain of all Religion and the first in the Kingdom of Britain But upon a strict enquiry into the Circumstances of this Charter I see great reason to call in question the Truth of it and not merely from the dissimilitude of Style between this and other Charters of the Saxon times which are allowed to be Authentick such as those in Ingulphus William of Malmsbury the Additions to Matthew Paris c. But for these
Seals to them And therefore I think Ingulphus ought not to be taken in so strict a sense that there were no Seals in use before the Norman times but that Deeds or Charters before were good or valid by bare Crosses and Marks with Subscriptions without Seals But that the Normans would allow none that had no Seals to them And this upon due consideration will appear to be the true meaning of Ingulphus And the same MS. Authour commends the discretion of the Saxon way of confirming Charters above that of the Normans a Seal of Wax being so apt to decay or to be lost or taken off And he observes one particular Custome of the Normans That they were wont to put some of the hair of their Heads or Beards into the Wax of their Seals I suppose rather to be kept as Monuments than as adding any strength or weight to their Charters So he observes That some of the Hair of William Earl of Warren was to his time kept in the Priory of Lewes To that of the Leaden Bull appending to the Charter of St. Augustin he makes a pitifull Answer viz. That he being deputed hither by the Pope might use the same Seal which he did at Rome And so every Legate might grant Bulls with Leaden Seals which would not be well taken at Rome But it is much more to the purpose which he adds viz. That when in the time of Henry III. this Privilege was questioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury because of this Leaden Bull the Earl of Flanders produced such another given him by a foreign Bishop which he and his Predecessours had used the Fashion whereof he sets down and the Bull it self was preserved as a Monument in St. Augustine's But if this were then so common a Custome especially at Rome why had they no such Bulls of Gregory the Great who sent Augustine To that he gives a frivolous Answer viz. That Gregory died the same year of the endowment of St. Augustine ' s. But did he leave no Successour And had it not been more to their purpose to have produced one Leaden Bull of the Pope's at that time than twenty of Augustine's the Monk But he gives no manner of answer to the Rasure of the first Charter nor to the late Writing of the second And although the using of Leaden Bulls were not so soon appropriated to the Consistorial Grants of the Bishop of Rome but Princes and Bishops might use them as Sir H. Spelman and Monsieur du Cange and Mabillon have all proved yet there ought to be better proof brought of the matter of Fact as to St. Augustine's Privilege for it is still very suspicious not onely on the account of the Leaden Bull which Polydore Virgil could not find so early used even at Rome and he allows it to be no elder than Anno Domini 772. and all the Instances brought before by Dom. Raynaldus are confessed to be suspicious by Mabillon himself but there are several things in it which in Sir H. Spelman's Judgment favour of the Norman times as the Jus consuetudinarium Iudicia intus foris and the very Title of Archbishop as it is there used was hardly of that Antiquity in the Western Church and was never given to Augustine by Gregory But according to Isidore's explication of it who was Gregory's Disciple and understood the Language of that Age Augustine could not properly call his Successours Archbishops for he saith That Title belong'd to them who had power over Metropolitans as well as other Bishops and it was not before the ninth Age as Mabillon and others observe that it came to be commonly used for a Metropolitan It was therefore a judicious Rule laid down by the Learned Authour of the Preface to the Monasticon concerning the Charters of Monks that the elder they pretend to be the more they are to be suspected For which he is deservedly praised by Papebrochius but Mabillon is very unwilling to allow it as overthrowing at once the authority of all their ancient Charters And therefore he hath endeavoured with mighty Industry to defend chiefly the old Benedictin Charters in France But he cannot deny many of them to be counterfeited Papebrochius saith almost all and at the Conclusion of his Discourse he vindicates the Monks by the commonness of the fault in elder times which is an Argument of Caution to us rather than of any credit to be given to them And it cannot be denyed that he hath laid down many usefull Rules for discerning the true and false with respect to the Customs of France But we are still as much to seek as to our pretended Charters since the Custome of making Charters cannot be made appear to be so old here as it was there He doth indeed endeavour to prove from Bede's Epistle to Egbert that in his time there were written Privileges granted to Monasteries among the Saxons and something before that among the Britains by the Synod of Landass Anno Dom. 660. But he cannot prove nor doth he attempt it that there were any Charters among the Saxons before that of Withred Anno Dom. 694. and if not all the ancient Charters referr'd to in this Charter of Ina must be false and counterfeit 2. How comes King Ina to have so great authority over all the Kings of Britain the Archbishops Bishops Dukes and Abbats as this Charter expresseth In the beginning of the Charter he mentions Baldred as one of his Vice-Roys In the middle he speaks of Baldred as one of his Predecessours and joins him with Kenewalchius Kentwin and Cedwalla But in the end he makes him to confirm what Ina has granted Ego Baldredus Rex confirmavi But who was this King Baldred In the Kingdom of Kent Edricus was in the beginning of Ina's Reign according to the Savilian Fasti and Withredus from the sixth to the end In the Kingdom of the East Saxons there were Sighardus Senfredus Ossa and Selredus In the Kingdom of East Angles Beorna and Ethelredus In the Kingdom of Mercia Adelredus Kenredus Ceolredus Athelbaldus In the Kingdom of Northumberland Alfredus Osfredus Kenredus Osricus But among all these not one Baldredus appears There was indeed one of that Name King of Kent near an hundred years after but what is that to the time of Ina But suppose Baldred then in being and onely a Vice-Roy in some part of Ina's Dominions how comes Ina to this Vniversal Monarchy or Power to command all the Kings of Britain which is expressed in the Charter Sed omnibus Regni mei Regibus c. Praecipio By what Authority did the King of the West Saxons at that time make such a Precept to all other Kings in Britain But I remember Geffrey of Monmouth makes him Grandchild to Cadwallader And the Authour of the Additions to King Edward's Laws saith he had the Kingdom of Britain with his second Wife Wala
Daughter of Cadwallader and then Ina called a Parliament for the Intermarriage of Britains and Saxons So that there was an Opinion among some that Ina had the Monarchy of Britain which Opinion was certainly follow'd by the Contriver of this Charter But Mr. Lambard confesseth that these Passages are not in the ancient MS. of King Edward's Laws and it is a wonder they should ever come into them being so destitute of any colour of authority and so remote from the design of his Laws As to these counterfeit Charters the Opinion of Papebrochius seems most probable to me that they were for the most part framed in the eleventh Century when there was Ignorance enough to make them pass and occasion enough given to the Monks to frame them for their own security against the encroachments of others upon their Lands and the Jurisdiction of Bishops over their Monasteries And William the Conquerour having given such invidious Privileges to Battell Abbey as may be seen in his Charter the elder Monasteries thought much to be so far behind them and therefore made themselves as great Privileges by the favour of Saxon Kings From hence in the next Age arose so many Contests about Jurisdiction between the Bishops and the several Monasteries of which we reade not before as we have already observed between the Abbey of St. Augustine and the Archbishop of Canterbury between the Abbey of Malmsbury and the Bishop of Salisbury and the Abbey of St. Albans and the Bishop of Lincoln And at that time those Abbies were charged with forging their Charters And when they were so charged were not able to defend them as was remarkable in the case of Saint Augustine's as it is related by William Thorn a Monk of that Abbey He confesseth the Archbishop chargeth their Privileges with Forgery and that the Monks appealed to Rome and that upon their Appeal several Commissions were granted to examine them but by his own relation they shamefully declined to produce them as long as they durst and still continued their Appeal But when they saw no remedy they produced the Charters of Ethelbert and Augustine the Copies whereof the Delegates sent to Rome But before they came thither the Pope died and the next Pope Lucius sent an Inhibition to the Archbishop requiring him not to invade their Privileges till the question of Forgery were determined and he writes to King Henry II. in the behalf of the Abbey Things being at this pass they fairly made a Composition with the Archbishop viz. That he should withdraw his Accusation of Fraud in the Court of Rome and they would yield up to him the main Points contested as to Jurisdiction The form of which Composition is at large extant in Thorn And the Confirmation of it by Henry II. in the other MS. Chronicon of that Abbey Which in effect amounted to the Monks giving up the Cause of their Charters Such a Controversie about Jurisdiction there was between Jocelin Bishop of Bath and Wells and the Abbey of Glassenbury about Anno Dom. 1215. as appears by the Book called Secretum Domini Abbatis lately in the Arundell Library but now in a private hand So that there appears a sufficient inducement for them to forge such large Immunities and Exemptions with respect to the Bishop's Jurisdiction as this Charter contains and that seems to be the main Point aimed at in it But in order to it some extraordinary matter was to be alledged in favour of this Place and nothing served so much in that Age as to amuse the People with wonderfull Stories of the Antiquity of it Calling it the Mother of Religion and the Place of Visions and Revelations and Miracles where St. Patrick and St. David dwelt in former times before ever the Saxons came but not a word yet of Joseph of Arimathea which were very plausible Pretences for extraordinary Privileges and so they are alledged in this Charter of King Ina Ita ipsa supereminentem Privilegii obtineat dignitatem nec ulli omnino hominum ancillare obsequium faciat in terris c. Which words are spoken of the Blessed Virgin but according to the Construction of that Age to be under stoo of Glassenbury Abbey because the Church was believed to be consecrated to her by our Saviour himself But it seems strange that such a Charter should ever pass for authentick with any who compare the Language of it with the History of King Ina as it is delivered by the Monkish Historians For by them it appears what Wars he had with his neighbour Princes and how far he was to the last from commanding Kings and Princes and Archbishops whose Kingdom was confined to the West and South Saxons and had but one Bishop in it till the eighteenth year of his Reign when it was divided into two Daniel having one share and Aldelm the other And some years after Eadbertus was Bishop of the South Saxons so that he had but three Bishops at the most and never an Archbishop in his Dominions How then could he call the several Kings Archbishops and Bishops together to pass this Charter The like gross absurdity there is in the Charter of Evesham Abbey wherein Brightwaldus is said to draw it up with the consent of all the Princes in England met in Council as the Pope Constantine explains it which is somewhat hard to believe concerning that Age wherein they were under no common Head but continually fighting with each other till the West Saxons prevailed And the Case of the Abbey of Evesham seems to have been much the same with that of Glassenbury For William of Malmsbury wonders how Bede came to omit the Foundation of it if it were so solemnly declared at Rome as the Charters import when Kenred and Offa were both there which is mention'd by Bede And in truth it is very strange that so diligent a Writer especially of such things as Bede was should say not a Word either of Glassenbury or Evesham But he judiciously imputes the occasion of founding this Monastery to some old Church of the Britains standing there in a desolate place which Egwin then Bishop of Worcester took a great Fancy to and so raised a Monastery there But such a plain Story as this would never doe the Monks business and therefore they must have a Legend of Egwin's Chains c. and the Vision of the Blessed Virgin there and large Immunities granted to the Place on these accounts as they have fully done in the Charters of Kenred and Offa the Bull of Constantine and the Privilege of Egwin But yet this unlucky charge of Pope Constantine to Brightwaldus to summon a Council of the whole Nation Princes and Bishops to confirm this Charter at a time when there were so many Kingdoms not onely divided but most commonly in actual War with each other makes this whole Charter appear to be an undoubted Forgery of the Monks to obtain great Privileges to themselves But to return to
he saith That Anno Domini 601. the King of Dompnonia i. e. Devonshire and Cornwall gave to the old Church in Glassenbury the Land called Ynis Withrin or the Island of Avalon Who this King was he saith he could not learn but he concludes him to have been a Britain by calling the Island by the British Name But as to Arviragus that there was a British Prince of that name cannot be denied since Juvenal mentions him in Domitian's time Omen habes inquit magni clarÃque Triumphi Regem aliquem capies aut de Temone Britanno Excidet Arviragus The Authour of the Chronicle of Dover understands this Passage as spoken to Nero which agrees much better with the Tradition of Glassenbury but will by no means agree with Juvenal who saith plainly enough that Satyr related to Domitian and his Flatterers And this was a very insipid Flattery to Domitian unless Arviragus were a considerable Prince then living and an Enemy to Caesar. For what Triumph could he have over a Subject or a Friend as Aviragus is supposed after the reconciliation with Vespasian And no such Enemy could appear at that time in these parts of Britain For Petilius Cerealis had conquer'd the Brigantes and Julius Frontinus the Silures and Agricola after them the Ordovices And in the time of his Government Tacitus saith Even the consederate Cities among the Britains who stood upon Terms of Equality before then submitted themselves to the Roman Power and received Garrisons among them After this Agricola proceeded Northwards against new People and destroyed them as far as the Frith of Taus Tweed Then he fortified the Passage between Glota and Bodotria Dumbretton and Edenborough Frith So that the Romans were absolute Lords of all this side having cast out the Enemy as it were into another Land as Sir H. Savil translates the words of Tacitus From which it is evident there could be no such King as Arviragus at that time in these parts of the Island over whom Domitian could expect a Triumph But suppose there were what is this to the eighth of Nero when Joseph of Arimathea is said to have come hither at what time Arviragus is said to be King in Britain It is possible he might live so long but how comes he to be never mention'd in the Roman Story as Prasutagus Cogidunus Caractacus Togodumnus and Galgacus are Arviragus his name was well known at Rome in Domitian's time why not spoken of before Some think he was the same with Prasutagus but this cannot be for Prasutagus was dead before the Revolt of the Britains under Boadicea which was occasion'd by the Romans ill usage of the Britains after his death And Prasutagus left onely two Daughters what becomes then of his Son Marius whom White would have to be Cogidunus But Marius is said to succeed Arviragus who was alive in Domitian's time and Cogidunus had the Cities conferred upon him before Suetonius Paulinus came into Britain as appears by Tacitus which are things inconsistent Others say that Arviragus was the same with Caractacus for this Opinion Alford contends and Juvenal he saith mentions the name by a Poetical Licence although he lived long before But what reason is there to suppose that Fabricius Veienti should make such a course Complement to Domitian that he should triumph over a man dead and triumphed over once already by Claudius who was never known at Rome by any other name than Caractacus as far as we can find by which he was so famous for his long Opposition to the Romans But it is very probable that in Domitian's time after the recalling Agricola and taking away the Life of Salustius Lucullus his Successour The Britains took up Arms under Arviragus And the Learned Primate of Armagh mentions an old British Coin in Sir R. Cotton's Collections with these Letters on it ARIVOG from whence he thinks his true name was Arivogus which the Romans turned to Arviragus And the old Scholiast there saith that was not his true name The Britains being now up in Arms as far as we can learn were not repressed till Hadrian came over in Person and built the first Wall to keep them out of the Roman Province For before this Spartianus saith The Britains could not be kept in subjection to the Roman Power So that here was a fit season in Domitian's time Agricola being recalled in the beginning of Domitian's Reign for such a King as Arviragus to appear in the head of the Britains and it was then a suitable Complement to him to wish him a Triumph over Arviragus But Alford saith that Claudius sent Caractacus home again and after many years he dyed in Peace being a Friend to the Romans How then comes Tacitus to take no notice of him as he doth of Cogidunus Is it probable the Romans would restore so subtile and dangerous an Enemy as Caractacus had been to them Cogidunus had been always faithfull to them but Caractacus an open Enemy and the Silures still in being over whom he commanded and not over the Belgae as he must have done if he were the Arviragus who gave the Hydes of Land to Joseph of Arimathea and his Companions These things I have here put together to shew for what Reasons I decline the Tradition of Joseph of Arimathea's coming hither to Preach the Gospel And although they may not be sufficient to convince others yet I hope they may serve to clear me from unexcusable Partiality which Mr. Cressy charges on all who call this Tradition into question 2. But notwithstanding I hope to make it appear from very good and sufficient Evidence that there was a Christian Church planted in Britain during the Apostles times And such Evidence ought to be allow'd in this matter which is built on the Testimony of ancient and credible Writers and hath a concurrent probability of Circumstances I shall first produce the Testimony of ancient and credible Writers For it is an excellent Rule of Baronius in such Cases That no Testimonies of later Authours are to be regarded concerning things of remote Antiquity which are not supported by the Testimony of ancient Writers And there is a difference in the force of the Testimony of ancient Writers themselves according to their Abilities and Opportunities For some had far greater judgment than others some had greater care about these matters and made it more their business to search and enquire into them and some had greater advantages by being present in the Courts of Princes or Councils of Bishops whereby they could better understand the Beginning and Succession of Churches And for all these there was none more remarkable in Antiquity than Eusebius being a learned and inquisitive Person a Favorite of Constantine the first Christian Emperour born and proclaimed Emperour in Britain one present at the Council at Nice whither Bishops were summoned from all parts of the Empire and one that had a particular curiosity to examine
the Persecution but left the Laws in force upon information That Hadrian in his Rescript to Minutius Fundanus Proconsul of Asia forbad a general Persecution of any as Christians That Antoninus Pius not onely pursued the same method but threatned severe punishment to all Informers the same he saith of M. Aurelius In Commodus his time he saith the Christian Churches flourished very much in all parts So that till Severus his Edict there was no Persecution by virtue of any Edict of the Emperours by the account which Eusebius gives And Lactantius hardly allows any Persecution at all from Domitian to Decius Not but that the Christians suffered very much in some Places through the Rage of the People and the Violence of some Governours of Provinces But there was no general Persecution countenanced by the Emperours Edicts and therefore where the People were quiet or intent upon other things there might be Christian Churches where there were no such Martyrdoms as those of Lyons and Vienna It is certain that Irenaeus mentions the consent of the Celtick Churches and those of Germany and the Iberi with the Eastern and Libyan Churches All the Question is Whether this ought to be restrained to the Churches planted among the Celtae as they were one Division of the Gauls in Caesar's time or whether he took the Word in the larger sense as comprehending all the Gauls This latter seems much more probable because Irenaeus in none of the others mention'd by him takes any particular Division of the People but the general Name as of the Germans and Iberi and why not then the Celtae in as large a sense Since Strabo Plutarch Appian and others call the Gauls in general by the name of Celtae and Tertullian manifestly rejects that sense of Celtae for one Division of the Gauls when he mentions the several Nations of the Gauls which had embraced Christianity But I will not insist as Petrus de Marca doth That Tertullian by the Galliarum diversae Nationes means the four Provinces of Gaul into which Augustus did distribute it But I say that there is no reason to limit the sense of Tertullian to one Division of the Gauls supposing the different Nations do comprehend those of Gallia Cisalpina and Transalpina although I see no ground to understand Tertullian so since the name of Gallia Cisalpina was much difused especially after the new distribution of the Empire by Hadrian So that from the Testimonies of Irenaeus and Tertullian we see no reason to question the greater Antiquity of the Celtick Churches than Sulpicius Severus intimates much less to overthrow the Antiquity of the Britannick Churches For besides this Testimony of Tertullian concerning the British Churches We have another of Origen not long after who saith When did Britain before the coming of Christ consent in the Worship of one God Which implies that the Britains were then known to be Christians and by being so were brought off from the former Idolatry And unless so learned a Man as Origen had been fully satisfied of the truth of this having choice enough of other Instances he would not have run as far as Britain to bring an Argument to prove that all the Earth doth praise the Lord Which he saith is fulfilled in the Christian Churches dispersed over the World But I wonder what should make two such learned Antiquaries as Mr. Camden and Bishop Godwin so far to mistake the sense of Origen to understand him as if he had said That Britain by the help of the Druids always consented in the belief of one God whereas it is very plain That Origen speaks of it as a great alteration that was made in the Religion of the Britains after the coming of Christ. And Origen doth not onely speak of the belief but of the Worship of one God which it is certain from Caesar That the Druids did never instruct the People in But the Christian Religion alter'd the whole Scheme of the Druids Worship and instead of their Taranis and Hesus and Teutates and Belenus and Andate it taught them to believe and worship one true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent to be the Saviour of the World Whose Power Origen saith elsewhere was seen in Britain as well as Mauritania Thus far I have endeavoured to clear the Apostolical Succession of the British Churches which those have rendred more doubtfull who have derived our Christianity from King Lucius his Message to Pope Eleutherius and the Persons he sent over to convert him and the whole Nation as the Tradition goes to the Christian Faith But there is a considerable difference to be observed about this Tradition not merely about the time of the Conversion of this King Lucius of which Archbishop Vsher hath given so full an account that to his diligence therein nothing material can be added but concerning the means and manner of his Conversion and the Persons employ'd in it For Petrus Equilinus saith That he was baptized by Timothy a Disciple of St. Paul and he had it from a much better Authour for Notkerus Balbulus saith That King Lucius was baptized by Timothy not the Timothy to whom Saint Paul wrote his Epistles But the Brother of Novatus whose Names are extant in the old Martyrology published by Rosweyd 12 Cal. Julii who were both saith Baronius Sons to Pudens a Roman Senatour the same who is supposed to have been marryed to Claudia Rufina the Britain and therefore his Son might not improbably be employ'd in this work of converting a British King Nauclerus takes notice That this Relation agrees best with the Tradition of the Church of Curia a noted City of Rhaetia And Pantaleon calls Lucius the Disciple of Timothy out of the Annals of that Church From whence Marcus Velserus shews that he did not die here in Britain but went over into those parts of Rhaetia to preach the Gospel and there suffer'd Martyrdom or at least ended his days For they are not agreed about the manner of his death Aegidius Tschudus saith the former who adds that there is a place near Curia called Clivus S. Lucii still and Munster saith near the Episcopal Palace there is Monasterium Sancti Lucii And Ferrarius in his new Topography to the Martyrologium Romanum reckons King Lucius of Britain one of the Martyrs of Curia which the Germans call Chur and the Italians Choira And the Roman Martyrology saith That there his memory is still observed Notkerus Balbulus saith That he converted all Rhaetia and part of Bavaria If so they had great reason to preserve his Memory and the British Church on the account of King Lucius his converting their Countrey hath as much right to challenge Superiority over Bavaria and Rhaetia as the Church of Rome hath over the British Church on the account of the Conversion of Lucius by Eleutherius If this Tradition
first settling of the Scots in Britain to be that under Reuda But he mentions their Annals for Fergus the Son of Ferchard before Reuda and Rether and Ryddesdale as it is in Fordon But he makes the Kingdoms of the Picts Scots and Britains to be distinct in Caesar's time And that they all joined against him And so relates Fordon's Story to the time of Fergus II. But between the two Fergusses he makes but 15 Kings and 700 Years Hector Boethius before he begins the Tradition of Gathelus very ingenuously confesses that their Nation follow'd the Custome of other Nations therein making themselves the Offspring of the Greeks and Egyptians And so he tells all the Story from Gathelus as Fordon has done onely here and there making Additions and Embellishments of his own As when he derives the Brigantes from Brigantia in Spain When he sets down the Deliberation about the Form of Government upon Fergus his coming to Scotland And the Speeches of Fergus and the King of the Picts The Death of Coilus King of the Britains The entring the fundamental Contract of the Scots with the Posterity of Fergus in Marble Tables in the way of Hieroglyphicks The Agrarian Law and Partition made by Seven and the Division of the Tribes The bringing the Silures Ordovices Camelodunum as well as the Brigantes within the Compass of Scotland These are the proper Inventions of Hector unless he had them from his Spaniard Veremundus which no one could tell but himself Thence Leland and Lluyd charge him with innumerable Falshoods Dempster confesses that Buchanan frequently chastises him But he would have it rather on the Account of Religion than Learning But it is plain that he owns his Mistakes and Vanity onely he charges Lluyd with as great on behalf of the Britains In the Second Book Hector inlarges more For Fordon passeth on from Fergus to Rether or Bede's Reuda having nothing to say But Hector acquaints us with the Contest about the Regency upon Fergus his Death and the Law then made concerning it the attempt of Resignation of Feritharis to Ferlegus the Son of Fergus and his Imprisonment upon it The Death of Feritharis after fifteen years Reign The Flight of Ferlegus into Britain with the Choice of Main his younger Brother to be King His good Government and Annual Progress for Justice through all Places of his Dominions His appointing Circles of great Stones for Temples and one in the middle for the Altar And the Monthly Worship of the New Moon And several Egyptian Sacrifices which one would have thought had been more proper for Gathelus himself with the Succession of his Son Dornadil his making the Laws of Hunting which were still observed there And of his Brother Nothatus his Son Reuther being an Infant Who came in by the Law of Regency saith Hector By the Power of the People saith Buchanan but in truth by neither For all this Succession seems to have been the product of Hector's fruitfull Invention which Buchanan follows without Authority as he doth in all the rest of the Succession of that Race of Kings from Reuther to Fergus II. To make way for Bede's Account of Reuda's coming into those Parts of Britain This Reuther is forced back into Ireland from whence he is said to return with new Supplies after twelve years From whom the Scots were then called Dalreudini But this return of Reuther Hector places in the year before Christ 204. And after him Reutha his Kinsman In whose time Hector relates an Embassy from Ptolemy Philadelphus to him And the Account of Scotland which he began in a large Volume for his satisfaction which was after finished by Ptolemy the Cosmographer This Buchanan had the Wit to leave out and even Dempster himself though he mentions him for a Writer of their History and so he doth the Voyage of the two Spanish Philosophers in the time of Josina and their Preaching against the Egyptian Worship in Scotland but Lesly hath it And if Buchanan had believed it he would have set it down as well as Josina's bringing Physick and Chirurgery into so much request That there was not a Noble Man that could not practise the latter And yet Hector declares immediately after the Story of the Philosophers that hitherto he had followed Veremundus John Campbell and Cornelius Hibernitus the most approved Authours of their History It would have been some satisfaction to the World if any other Person had seen these Authours besides Fordon never mentions them And yet he used great diligence to search their Antiquities And if Dempster may be believed had the Sight of their most ancient MSS. Buchanan passes them over Dempster names them on the authority of Hector What became of these great Authours afteâ— Hector's time Did he destroy them as some say Polydore Virgil did some of ours after he had used them But this were Madness to quote their Authority and destroy the Authours For these were his Vouchers which ought most carefully to have been preserved And in truth Hector himself gives no very consistent Account of his Authours For in his Epistle to James 5. he mentions Veremundus Archdeacon of St. Andrew's who deduced the Scotish History from the Original to Malcolm III. And Turgott Bishop of St. Andrew's and John Campbell which were brought from the Island Iona To whom he adds an Anonymous Authour and the imperfect History of William Elphinston Bishop of Aberdeen But saith he if any ask such a material Question How came these Authours to be seen no where else He answers That Edw. I. destroy'd all their Monuments of Antiquity So that had not those been preserved in the Island Iona with the Chest of Books which Fergus II. brought from the sacking of Rome in the time of Alaric They had been able to give no account of their Antiquities From whence it is evident that Hector never saw or heard of any ancient Authours of their History but such as were conveyed to him from the Island Iona. But in his Seventh Book where he gives a more particular account of those Books which were brought to him from thence he onely mentions some broken Fragments of Latin Authours But whose they were where Written whence they came he knew not And as to their own Histories he names indeed Veremundus and Elphinston and no more The latter he said before was imperfect and lately done So that the whole Credit of Hector's Antiquities rests entirely upon Veremundus For here he never takes notice of Campbell or Cornelius Hibernicus But he saith Edw. I. had destroy'd all their Antiquities but such as were preserved in the Island Iona or Hy. And is this now a good Foundation to build a History upon For is it not very strange that no one Copy of Veremundus should be heard of since that time When there were several of Fordon not onely there but in our Libraries some with the Inlargements and some without But if our King
the County of Longford which he deduces to Anno Domini 1405. The Annals of Vlster by one Maguir Canon of Armach deduced to his own time who died An. Dom. 1498. And the Annals of Dungall composed by four modern Authours out of all their former Annals But among all these there is nothing pretending to Antiquity but the Psalter of Cashel and Tigernacus yet the Psalter of Cashel falls short of the time of Nennius for Cormach King of Munster the supposed Authour of it lived after the beginning of the tenth Century being killed by Flanmhac Siona called Flannus Siuna by Gratianus Lucius who died An. Dom. 914. or as Sir James Ware thinks An. Dom. 916. And for Tigernacus his Annals the four Magistri as Colgunus calls them or the Annals of Dungall are positive that Tigernacus ô Braion the Authour of them died in the eleventh Century An. Dom. 1088. There remains onely the Psaltuir Na-Ran written by Aonghais Ceile de or by Aengusius one of the Culdees who lived in the latter end of the eighth Century as the same Irish Antiquary confesses who withall saith That all the Works contained therein relate onely to Matters of Piety and Devotion which therefore can signifie nothing to our purpose So that nothing appears of the Irish Antiquities which can pretend to be written before the Danish Invasion And although we are told that these Annals were taken out of others more ancient yet we have barely their Word for it for those ancient Annals whatever they were are irrecoverably lost So that there can be no comparison of one with the other And how can they be so certain of the exactness used in the Parliament of Tarach to preserve their Annals if there be no ancient Annals to preserve the Memory of the Proceedings at that time It was a very extraordinary Care for the Estates of the whole Nation to preserve their Annals if we could be assured of it Which doth much exceed the Library of Antiquities which Suffridus Petrus speaks of set up as he saith by Friso the Founder of the Frisians at Stavera near the Temple of Stavo in which not onely the ancient Records were preserved from time to time But the Pictures of the several Princes with the times of their Reigns from An. 313. before Christ 's coming to Charlemagns time The like whereof he saith no German Nation can boast of But yet methinks the Posterity of Gathelus exceeds that of Friso's in the Care of Preserving their Antiquities For the Wisedom of the whole Nation was concerned in it But I never read of any who ever saw this Library of Antiquities at Stavera but we must believe Cappidus Staverensis and Occa Scarlensis as to these things And that they saw the Records as Hector did Veremundus although none else ever did But as to this Parliament of Tarach which was carefull to preserve the Irish Antiquities Whence have we this Information Are the Acts of that Assembly preserved Are any Copies of those Annals still in being Yes we are told that the keeping of the Original Book was entrusted by the Estates to the Prelates and those Prelates for its perpetual Preservation caused several authentick Copies of it to be fairly engrossed whereof some are extant to this day and several more faithfully transcribed out of them their Names being the Book of Ardmach the Psalter of Cashel c. It seems then these are the Transcripts of the Original Authentick Book allowed by all the Estates of the Kingdom But the Book of Ardmach is a late thing being the same with the Annals of Vlster composed by a Canon of Armach So that the whole rests upon the Psalter of Cashel which must be composed 500 years after the meeting of that famous Assembly For St. Patrick was one of the number and it was done in the time of Laogirius or Leogarius King of Ireland who died saith Gratianus Lucius An. Dom. 458. But King Cormach lived in the tenth Century And therefore an account must be given how this Original Book or Authentick Copies were preserved for that 500 years and more in the miserable Condition that Nation was in a great part of that time So that the Difference is not so great between the Authority of Geffrey of Monmouth and these Annals as is pretended For I see no Reason why the Story of Brutus should be thought more incredible than that of Ciocal Bartholanus and Nemedus with his Son Briotan that gave the name to Britain And especially the Story of Gathelus himself his Marriage in Egypt to Scota coming to Spain and thence his Posterity to Ireland which seems to me to be made in imitation of Geffrey's Brutus For Brutus married Pandrasus his Daughter the King of Greece and then was forced to seek his Fortune at Sea and passing by Mauritania just as Gathelus did the one landed in Gaul and came for Albion And the other in Spain and sent his Son for Ireland And I wonder to find Brutus his Giants in Albion of so much larger Proportions than the Giants in Ireland who are said not to exceed the tallest growth of Men For I had thought Giants had been Giants in all Parts of the World Suppose some Learned Men have question'd Whether there were such a person as Brute I should think it no more Heresie than to call in question Whether there were such Persons as Ciocal Bartholanus Briotan or Gathelus If the silence of good Authours the distance of time and want of Ancient Annals complained of makes the History of Brutus so hard to be believed I onely desire that these Irish Traditions may be examined by the same Rules and then I believe the Irish Antiquities will be reduced to the same Form with the British Onely Geffrey had not so lucky an Invention as to have his History confirm'd by Parliament For if he had but thought of it he could have made as general an Assembly of the Estates at Lud's Town and as select a Committee of Nine as ever was at Tarach But all mens Inventions do not lie the same way And in this I confess Keting or his Authours have very much exceeded Geffrey and his British MS. And upon the whole matter I cannot see that the Irish Chronologers and Historians have so much more probability in their Story of Briotan than the British Writers had in the Tradition of Brute For it is certain it was not originally the Invention of Geffrey onely he might use some art in setting it off as he thought with greater advantage than the Britains had done before him But still we are referr'd to the Authority of the Irish Monuments in the Psalter of Cashel written 800 years since by the holy Cormach both King and Bishop of Munster Let us then for once examine one part of the History taken from thence and then leave the Reader to judge whether it deserves so much more Credit than the British Antiquities
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
Dom. 215. however long enough before the time of Fergus According to this supposition that part of Scotland called Dalrieta or Dalreuda the bounds whereof are described by the Learned Primate was inhabited long before the coming of Fergus and so agrees with what Bede saith That the Scots came first out of Ireland under the conduct of Reuda and either by Force or Friendship found habitations for themselves there which they still enjoy'd and from their Leader to this time they were called Dalreudim Daal signifying a share in their Language This Reuda seems to be the same with Cairbre Riada the third Son of Conair And if Fergus were descended from the same Conair it gives a probable Account of Fergus his coming afterwards into those Parts and taking the Government upon him For Keting saith That Eochac Mumreamhar of the Progeny of Cairbre Redhfadac or Riada had two Sons Earcha and Elchon And from the former the Families of Dal Riada in Scotland are descended from the latter those of Dal Riada in Ulster Which must be understood of that part of the Vlster Dal riadans which Fergus carried with him For there were the Descendents from Riada in Scotland before according to the former account But the whole matter about the Reign of Fergus remains still very obscure For 1. It seems strange that Bede takes no notice at all of him which in all probability he would have done as well as of Reuda who was less considerable 2. Jocelin in the Life of St. Patrick saith That Fergus was one of the twelve Sons of the King of Dalredia and was excluded from his share by his Brethren of whom St. Patrick prophesied That from him Kings should rise who should not onely reign at home but in a foreign Countrey After which saith he Fergus in no long time came to be King in his own Countrey And from him sprang Eanus who subdued Albany and other Islands and whose Posterity still reigns there So that if Jocelin's authority be good Fergus himself never came into Scotland But the mistake arose because he was King in Dalrieda Which the Scots understood of their own and thought they had Reason because the Posterity of Fergus reigned there 3. Giraldus Cambrensis who had a Sight of the Irish Annals never mentions Fergus but onely saith That in the time of Nellus the Monarch of Ireland six Sons of Mured King of Ulster sailed into the Northern Parts of Britain and there planted themselves from whom the Scotish Nation is derived This Nellus whom the Irish call Niall the Great was killed saith Gratianus Lucius Anno Dom. 403. And if the Sons of the King of Vlster came then over to plant and settle in Scotland this must be 100 years before the time of Fergus and consequently he could be none of that Number And yet the Irish Annalists make the two Fergusses the two Aengusses and the two Loarns to be the six Sons of Muriedhach King of Ulster who came over to settle in Scotland But if Giraldus his Authority be allow'd the Scots came not to settle in Britain till the beginning of the fifth Century And the Monarchy in the Posterity of Fergus according to Jocelin could not be till towards the middle of the sixth Century And if Edan King of the Scots in Bede's History be the same with that Edan in Jocelin who descended from Fergus Then the Scotish Kingdom did not begin till the seventh Century as appears by Bede But in matters of so much Obscurity I determine nothing But it is but Justice to consider on the other side what the Scotish Antiquaries do now plead for themselves to prove that they inhabited Scotland long before this time First They say Bede mentions them as ancient Inhabitants of this Island before the coming of the Romans and describes the War 's between the Picts Scots and Britains before that of the Romans It is very true that Bede in the beginning of his History doth set down the several Nations which inhabited Britain and he names five English Britains Scots Picts and Romans And among these he reckons the Britains first then the Picts after them the Scots from Ireland under Reuda and then adds That Ireland was the true Countrey of the Scots who coming hither made a third Nation in Britain besides the Britains and Picts and landed on the North part of the Frith towards Ireland and there settled themselves But Bede saith nothing at all of the time when the Scots came first from Ireland and it is of no force that he reckons them here before the War with the Romans for so he doth the English as well as the Scots his business being to give an Account of the present Inhabitants and not merely of the Ancient Haec in praesenti 5 Gentium linguis c. But where doth Bede say that the Scots were in Britain before the Romans coming hither I cannot find so much as an Intimation that way unless it be in the Title of the Chapter Of the Situation of Britain and Ireland and their ancient Inhabitants And doth not Bede speak of the Britains as the ancient Inhabitants of this Island and the Scots of Ireland But if all mention'd must be ancient Inhabitants then so must the English and Romans be as well as the Picts and Scots Well! But doth not Bede afterwards say That Severus his Wall was built against the unconquer'd Nations beyond it I grant it if he had said the Scots and Picts beyond it the Controversie had been ended But doth not Dio explain Bede who expresly tells us these Nations were the Maeatae and the Caledonii Why not the Picts and the Scots if then in Britain The latter Roman Writers never forbear calling them by their own Names when they knew them to be here as appears by Eumenius Claudian and Ammianus Marcellinus but to say the Scots were called Maeatae because they came from the Palus Maeotis will hardly go down in this Age. However it is confidently affirmed the Caledonii were the Scots Let this one thing be well proved and I will yield the Scots were in Britain long before Severus his time for Tacitus mentions the Caledonians But it is to no more purpose to quote modern Writers who call the Caledonians Scots than Lipsius his calling Galgacus a Scotish King for we are not bound to follow any modern Writers in their Improprieties There is no Question the Caledonians were known to Flaccus and Martial who certainly lived not in Augustus his time unless that Name be very improperly given by it self to Domitian or Trajan But do any of these Roman Authours ever tell us the Caledonians were Scots If not to what end are the Caledonians so much spoken of As far as we can find by Tacitus or Dio or any others they were the Northern Britains And if Tacitus had known that they came out of Ireland and were a distinct Nation he was so diligent and
built of Stone by Severus and accounted one of the great Works of the Roman Empire which was impossible to be built of Stone a-new by one Legion and the help of the Countrey But might very well be repaired and made desensible against the Scots and Picts We might now think that the Britains were left by the Romans in a tolerable Condition to defend themselves But assoon as their old Enemies understood that their old Friends had forsaken them they came upon them with a greater Force and Violence than ever And the Spirits of the poor Britains were so broken by their former Miseries that they were not able to withstand the Assaults of their Enemies But they forsook their Wall and Forts and fled as far as they could and dispersed themselves which made them an easie Prey to their barbarous Enemies who now destroyed them in a more cruel manner than they had done before And those who escaped were driven from their Habitations and hardly left in a condition to subsist having no Provision left but what they did get by Hunting This is the short account of what Gildas more Tragically inlarges upon And being thus reduced to the utmost Extremities they resolve once more to send to Aêtius their last Groans and to let him understand how unable they were to stand out against their Enemies Seeing between them and the Sea they were either drowned or butchered But all farther assistence was now denied them Aêtius being then as Bede saith deeply engaged in the War with Bleda and Attila Kings of the Hunns This Message was sent saith Bede in the 23d of Theodosius Aêtius being then third time Consul with Symmachus But Bleda according to Prosper and Cassiodore was killed by Attila two years before Aêtius and Symmachus were Consuls but one year before according to Marcellinus but the year following he makes the terrible Invasion of Europe by Attila to be And so Aêtius having then a Prospect of that War had just reason to deny Supplies to the Britains And when Valentinian was VI. Consul the year before Aêtius and Symmachus it appears by Valentinian's Letters to him that he was then in Gaul for then he directed the famous Constitution De Episcoporum Ordinatione to him there wherein he interposes his Authority to ratifie Leo's Sentence against Hilary of Arles But this is sufficient to shew that the Britains Complaints were then sent to Aêtius and not to any Agitius or Aequitius as some imagine Fordon saith The Britains sent to Agitius and Litorius But Litorius some years before was beaten and taken Prisoner by the Goths as appears by the Fasti Consulares both of Prosper and Cassiodore and Paulus Diaconus out of them But the Miseries of the Britains were still increased by a Famine which then raged which was not peculiar to Britain Bede saith That there was then a Famine at Constantinople and a great Plague which follow'd it which consumed abundance both of Men and Beasts Which he borrows from Marcellinus who makes both Famine and Plague to break out the very year Aêtius and Symmachus were Consuls Both these are mention'd by Euagrius in the Eastern Parts and therefore are not to be looked on as a peculiar Judgment on the Britains After this as Gildas and Bede tell us finding their Case almost desperate the Britains were resolved to sell their Lives and Liberties as dear as they could and by making a fierce Assault upon their Enemies they began to get the better of them Which they impute to their trusting rather to Divine Assistence than to the help of Men which they too much relied upon before The Britains as appears afterward did not want Courage but Exercise in Arms being kept under so long by the Romans they durst not so much as pretend to fighting for fear of being destroyed And now the Romans when they had a mind could not infuse new Spirits into them But their own Miseries at last roused and awaken'd them to that degree that they made their Enemies quiet for some time And the Irish Robbers saith Gildas returned home intending to return shortly And the Picts in the farthest part of the Island lay still onely sometimes making Excursions This is a considerable passage in Gildas which shews that even then the Scots whom he calls Irish Robbers were not Inhabitants of any part of Britain For he calls Ireland their home as before he said upon the second Devastation as the Margin of Joselin's Gildas hath it that they came in their Curroghs over the Scythian Vale so he calls the Irish Sea as Nennius calls the Scots Scytae But if they had then inhabited in Britain there had been no use of Curroghs to convey them over and this had been their proper Home Fordon seems to have been aware of this Objection and therefore saith The Scots and Picts took the Irish in to their Assistence But Gildas takes notice of no other Scots than those that came out of Ireland and returned back again Buchanan saith That upon the Success of Grime against the Britains many Strangers came in to the Scots Assistence and had their shares allow'd them in the conquer'd Lands But he takes no notice of Gildas or Bede's saying That those very People who fought with the Britains returned home to Ireland And the Picts were quiet in the utmost parts of the Island where there is no mention of any third sort of People called the Scots in Britain But Dempster undertakes from this place of Gildas to prove That the Scots and Irish were then distinguished because Gildas after he had mention'd the Scots and Picts here names the Irish Robbers It is true that Gildas before doth mention the Scots and Picts but in this Place he onely speaks of the Irish and the Picts which is an Argument on the other side For either the Scots had no share in these last Incursions or they must be comprehended under the Name of Irish having then no settled Habitations elsewhere but in Ireland But there is one Passage in Gildas which seems to imply that it was their Custome to inhabit this Countrey but Solito more being there used and they being then supposed out of Britain the word Inhabit can onely imply making a longer stay here as they were wont to doe when they had Success For their coming is described like that of the Bucaniers in the West-indies and their Stay was as they liked their Entertainment From this time Gildas onely mentions the Vices and the Fears and another great Plague among the Britains before he comes to that pernicious Counsel as he calls it for sending for the Saxons by Vortigern But before I speak of that while we are upon this Head of the Britains being thus exposed to their Enemies it will be needfull to enquire what that Legionary Assistence was which is mention'd in the Notitia Imperii and at what time that was made For if the Common Opinion be
from the British Arth which signifies a Bear This is an ingenious conjecture But we are not so sure there ever was such a King as Vther as we are from Gildas that there was such a one as Ambrosius But Gildas saith That some of the Race of Ambrosius were living in his time therefore he died not without issue as the British History supposes and this might probably be his Son who was slain in this Battel But what then is to be said to King Arthur who was Son to Vther and succeeded him whose mighty Feats are so amply related by the British History I think both sorts are to blame about him I mean those who tell Incredible Tales of him such as are utterly inconsistent with the Circumstances of the British Affairs at that time and those who deny there was any such Person or of any considerable power among the Britains William of Malmsbury takes notice of the British Fables about him and if I mistake not makes a severe reflexion upon Geffrey's History without naming it when he saith Hic est Arthurus de quo Britonum Nugae bodiéque delirant but he wishes a true Account had been given of him for he was the support of his Countrey for a long time who sharpned the broken Spirits of the Britains and made them Warlike But after all he will not allow him to have been Monarch in Britain but onely the General under Ambrosius And in all this William keeps close to Nennius for Nennius speaking of the Wars between the British Kings and the Saxons saith of Arthur Ipse Dux erat Bellorum although he exceeds the bounds of Truth in the next Words in omnibus Bellis Victor extitit he came off always Conquerour If this had been true the Saxons could never have kept footing in England I will allow the Saxon Annals to be partial in not recounting their Losses and on the other side it is unreasonable to suppose that the Saxons should be always beaten and yet always get ground even in Arthur's days For after the great Battel wherein Nathanleod was killed the onely British King mentioned in the Saxon Annals Cerdic's two Nephews Stuff and Witgar landed upon Cerdicshore which Matt. Westminster here places on the Western Coasts and not on the Eastern as Camden doth which seems more probable because they came with supplies to Cerdic their Uncle but all agree that as they fought upon their Landing they had the better of the Britains Huntingdon saith It was such a Victory as laid open the Countrey to them the force of the Britains being scattered God having cast them off Where was Arthur at this time Again five Years after saith Ethelwerd Cerdic and Cenric came the second time to Cerdicsford and there fought the Britains the Saxons Annals say nothing of the Victory but Florentius gives it to the Saxons and so doth Huntingdon who saith the Britains had a terrible blow that day And as an evidence of the Saxons Conquest Ethelwerd saith That year Cerdic began the Kingdom of the West Saxons From that very day saith Huntingdon Anno Dom. 519. Here Matt. Westminster is so hard put to it that taking in King Arthur at Anno Dom. 516. he is forced to leave out this Battel and to tell Geffrey's Story of King Arthur's beating the Saxons in the North about York and Lincoln and driving them as far as the Caledonian Wood and takes no notice of Kerdic's setting up a Kingdom in the West But the following Year Anno Dom. 520. he brings Colgrin Badulph and Cheldric to Totnes with new Forces with which they besieged Bath And then Arthur with his Caliborn did incredible execution for he saith he killed 840 with his own hands and so totally routed the Saxons and not a word of Kerdic or Kenric whereas Anno Dom. 528. he remembers them again and tells what a mighty Army they had in the Isle of Wight which H. Huntingdon calls Witland and what slaughter they made at Witgaresburgh which had its Name from Witgar one of Kerdic's Nephews to whom he gave the Isle of Wight and was buried at Witgar saith Huntingdon But before this there was another Battel between Kerdic and the Britains at Cerdics Leage which Huntingdon makes the same with Cerdicsford in which there was great slaughter on both sides and in that time he saith many Saxons came in out of Germany into Eastangle and Mercia but they were not yet formed into Kingdoms however innumerable Battels were fought in many places by Persons whose Names are not recorded And now Huntingdon mentions Arthur as a most valiant General on the British side who commanded in twelve Battels in all which he had the better and so reckons them up in order just as Nennius had done whom he transcribes and when he hath set down the places of the twelve Battels he confesses they were then unknown but he adds that there was almost perpetual fighting in which sometimes one side had the better and sometimes the other but still the Saxons poured in greater Numbers upon them And Nennius saith They increased here without intermission and fetched new Kings out of Germany to Rule over them And then sets down the foundation of the Northern Saxon Kingdom under Ida who govern'd all beyond Humber twelve years which was branched into two Deira and Bernicia This Kingdom began saith Huntingdon in the thirteenth year of the Reign of Kenric who succeeded Kerdic Anno Dom. 547. and Ida desceâ—ded from Woden was the first King Kenric in his eighteenth year saith the same Authour fought against the Britains who came with a powerfull Army to Salisbury where he dispersed them and made them fly But this is supposed to have hapned after Arthur's death which is placed by Matt. Westminster and others Anno Dom. 542. We must therefore look back to judge of Arthur's prowess We have already seen several Saxon Kingdoms established that of Kent of South-Saxons of West-Saxons and Saxons in other parts not yet gather'd into Kingdoms and besides these before Kendic had gained the Isle of Wight H. Huntingdon saith The Kingdom of East Saxons was founded by Erkinwin whom Slede succeeded who married the Daughter of Ermenerick King of Kent Sister of Ethelbert and Mother to Sibert the first Christian King there Now if Arthur were a King so powerfull so irresistible as the British History makes him how came all these Kingdoms to grow up under him Why did he not send the Saxons all out of Britain Nay how came Cerdic and Kenric to grow so strong in the Western parts as they did Cerdic saith William of Malmsbury came hither eight years after the death of Hengist Anno Dom. 495. He was here 24 years before he set up his Kingdom and lived in it 16 years This was in the midst of Arthur's fame and greatness If it were such as Geffrey describes would he have suffred such a terrour to the Britains to have been so near him
Ranulphus Higden saith That Arthur was so tired out with fighting Cerdic so weary of overcoming that 26 years after his coming he yielded part of the West to him And to the same purpose Rudburn speaks What is the meaning of all this The plain truth is they follow'd Geffrey as far as they could but they found at last they must give away Kerdic's Kingdom to him and so they had better make it a free Act of King Arthur Let us now compare with this the Account the British History gives of him which is this in short After the death of Vther Pendragon the British Nobility met at Silcester where the◠desired Dubricius to consecrate Arthur◠For the Saxons had conquer'd from Humber to Cathnes It seems all was clear on this side Humber And so he was no sooner Crown'd but away he marches for York leaving the Saxons here in quiet possession where Childeric came with 600 Ships to assist the two Brothers Colgrin and Baldulph whose Names the Saxon Annals conceal Upon this dreadfull conjunction Arthur repairs to London and calls a Parliament And they send over to Hoel King of Little-Britain his Nephew and who brings 15000 to his assistence at Southampton notwithstanding Port and his Sons were so near then away he marches for Lincoln and there kills 6000 Saxons and pursued the rest into Scotland and there dismissed them home upon promise of Tribute but they perfidiously returned to Totnes and so marched to besiege Bath Where after he had done the execution Matt. Westminster related the Saxons get upon the Hill which Arthur by the help of his Caliburn recover'd killed the two Brothers and made Childeric fly whom Cador pursued to the Isle of Thanet although the Son of Hengist had all Kent as his Kingdom After this he drives Gillomarus and his Irish home and determined to root out the Scots and Picts but upon great submission he spared them This being done he returns to York where he rebuilds the Churches and settles Pyramus Archbishop in the place of Samson and restores the British Nobility Next Summer he goes for Ireland and having subdued that he sails for Island not then inhabited saith Arngrimus Ionas a Learned Native there but upon notice of his coming the Kings of Seland and the Orcades yielded themselves Then he returns home and settles the Nation in a firm peace for twelve years although the Saxons were every where about them After which time his Name was dreaded abroad and away he sails for Norway and there conquer'd Riculfus and the whole Countrey from thence to Gaul where he chopt in pieces the Head of Flollos the Governour in single Combat and disposed the several Provinces 〈◊〉 his Servants and returning home resolved to keep a solemn Court at Caer-leon this was well thought upon for we reade of no Saxons thereabouts where besides several Kings the three Metropolitans met of London York and Caerleon besides all his Nobility But to pass over the great Solemnities there the Emperour Lucius not to be found elsewhere sends to demand Tribute on the account of Julius Caesar's Conquest upon which he makes great preparations to conquer Rome and leaves Britain to Mordred his Nephew who rebelled against him and forced him to return home when after he had conquered Lucius he was marching for Rome and here Mordred had associated Saxons Scots and Picts all against Arthur but upon his coming the other fled to Winchester from thence to Cornwall where near the River Camblan he waited for Arthur's coming the issue of the Battel was Mordred was killed and Arthur mortally wounded who was carried into the Island of Avalon and there died and was buried This is the British Legend of King Arthur which hath raised the laughter of some and the indignation of others William of Newburgh was the first who openly and in plain terms charged it with falsity and inconsistency but against some parts of it he makes trifling objections as about the Three Archbishops denying that the Britains had any Archbishops because the first Pall was given to Augustine the Monk But this was a piece of Monkish ignorance in him for there were Metropolitans before and without Palls from Rome and Archbishops or Metropolitans did assume the use of Palls to themselves without asking the Pope's leave and when he saith Archbishops came so late into the Western Churches it is true the use of the word did but the jurisdiction over Provinces was long before as I have already shew'd Upon the reviving of Learning some were so offended at this ridiculous Legend that they questioned whether ever there were such a Person as Arthur against whom Leland undertook the defence of King Arthur But some of his Authours will not be allow'd to bear witness in this cause being partial followers of Geffrey such as Alfred of Beverly Gray the Authour of Scalae-Chronicon Joh. Burgensis Joh. Ross c. Others do not speak home to the point such are the Testimonies of Nennius Malmsbury Huntingdon which make him onely General of the British Forces others are too modern as Trithemius Volaterranus Philippus Bergomas Nauclerus Hector Boethius Pontius Virunnius c. Others overthrow the main part of it as to Arthur 's Sovereign Dominion in Britain as the Chronica Divionensis which saith That after several Combats Cerdic had the possession of the West Saxon Kingdom by Arthur 's consent and as parts of this Kingdom he reckons Seven whole Provinces from Surry to Cornwall But the British History takes no notice of Cerdic but supposes all under Arthur's command and his Nephew Mordred's in his absence If Cerdic had the WestSaxon Kingdom then how comes no notice of him in the Battel at Camblan how came the fight within his Territories Again the Authour of the Life of Gildas cited by him saith That one Meluas had stollen his Wife Guenhere and defiled her and that Arthur a long time besieged him in the Marshes near Glassenbury Is this agreeable to the mighty power of King Arthur to have his Queen detained by force so long by such an inconsiderable Person as Meluas Especially if it were as Caradoc of Lancarvan there saith She was restored at last more by the intreaty of Gildas than out of respect to Arthur 's Authority As to Arthur's Seal which he lays so much weight upon it certainly belonged to the Diploma he gave to the Vniversity of Cambridge in his time mentioned by Leland and the Church of Westminster if they have it still ought to restore it But after all Leland hath sufficiently proved That there was such a Person as King Arthur from the Cair-Arture in Wales two Mountains so called And Arthur's Gate in Mongomery and the abundant Testimony he brings about his Coffin in Lead found in Glassenbury either in Henry the Second's time or at least in the beginning of Richard the First with an Inscription set down often by him and more exactly by Camden Where the Letters appear
who probably kept up their Succession for some time as long as there were any hopes of returning to their own See as is before observed After this Giraldus speaks of another great Council held by St. David which he calls Victoria in which he saith all the Clergy of Wales were present And the Decrees of the former Council were confirmed and new Canons made for the Government of the British Churches But this Second Synod is not mentioned in the old Vtrecht MS. nor in Capgrave but it is in Colganus and by the Expressions it appears to have been taken out of Giraldus who confesseth that no Copies of those Canons were to be seen in his time that Coast being so often visited by Pirats who no doubt came to steal MSS. and especially Church-Canons I will not deny that the British Churches at that time and in those parts might be said to be in a flourishing condition in comparison with other parts of Britain and there might be more Christians there because they had been driven out from other places and their Brethrens afflictions might encrease their Devotion But Gildas takes no more Notice of St. David than he doth of King Arthur The Battel at Badon-hill according to Archbishop Vsher was the year after the Synod at Brevy and from that time the British Churches had some quiet from their Enemies But then Gildas saith The Britains quarrelled among themselves but yet so as that some kind of Order and Government was then kept up among them by the Remembrance of their late Calamities And at this time he speaks the best of the Britains that he doth in his whole Book for he saith That Kings and Publick and Private Persons Bishops and other Churchmen for Sacerdotes in that Age often signified Bishops and Gildas calls it Sacerdotalem Episcopatus Sedem did all keep to the Duty of their places But then he adds when the Sense of these Calamities was worn out and a new Generation arose they fell into such a degeneracy as to cast off all the Reins of Truth and Iustice that no remainder of it appear'd in any sort of Men except a few a very few whose number was so small in comparison with the rest that the Church could hardly discern its genuine Children when they lay in her Bosome But before I come to this last and saddest part of the History of the British Churches it will be necessary now to give some Account of those Britains who being wearied out here went for Refuge to that Countrey in France which from them is called Bretagn It seems hard to determine when the first Colony of Britains was setled in the parts of Aremorica For in the declining times of the Roman Empire there was so frequent occasion of the British Souldiers removing into the Continent and so little encouragement to return hither that it is not improbable that after the Troubles of Maximus and Constantine a Colony of Britains might settle themselves upon the Sea Coasts near to Britain where they might be ready to receive or to go over to their Countrymen as the Condition of affairs should happen This I am very much induced to believe not from the Authority of Nennius or Geffrey or William of Malmsbury or Radulphus Niger c. but from these Arguments First from Sidonius Apollinaris and there are two passages in him which tend to the clearing this matter the first is concerning Aruandus accused at Rome of Treason in the time of Anthemius for persuading the King of the Goths to make War upon the Greek Emperour i. e. Anthemius who came out of Greece and upon the Britains on the Loir as Sidonius Apollinaris expresly affirms who lived at that time and pitied his case This hapned about Anno Dom. 467. before Anthemius was the second time Consul From whence it appears not onely that there were Britains then settled on the Loir but that their Strength and Forces were considerable which cannot be supposed to consist of such miserable People as fled from hence for fear of the Saxons And it is observable that about this time Ambrosius had success against the Saxons and by Vortimer's means or his the Britains were in great likelihood of driving them out of Britain so that there is no probability that the Warlike Britains should at that time leave their Native Countrey A second passage is concerning Riothamus a King of the Britains in the time of Sidonius Apollinaris and to whom he wrote who went with 12000 Britains to assist the Romans against Euricus King of the Goths but were intercepted by him as Jornandes relates the Story and Sigebert places it Anno Dom. 470. Now what clearer Evidence can be desired than this to prove that a considerable Number of Britains were there settled and in a condition not onely to defend themselves but to assist the Romans which cannot be imagined of such as merely fled thither after the Saxons coming into Britain Besides we find in Sirmondus his Gallican Councils Mansuetus a Bishop of the Britains subscribing to the first Council at Tours which was held Anno Dom. 461. By which we see the Britains had so full a settlement then as not onely to have Habitations but a King and Bishops of their own which was the great incouragement for other Britains to go over when they found themselves so hard pressed by the Saxons at home For a People frighted from hence would hardly have ventured into a foreign Countrey unless they had been secure before hand of a kind reception there If they must have fought for a dwelling there had they not far better have done it in their own Countrey From whence I conclude that there was a large Colony of Britains in Aremorica before those Numbers went over upon the Saxon Cruelties of which Eginhardus and other foreign Historians speak Archbishop Vsher seems to think this Riothamus himself to have been the first Leader of them But it is hard to think a Person of his Valour and Experience would leave his Countrey in that distressed Condition it was brought into by the Saxons But Florentius the Authour of the Life of Judocus Son to a King of Bretagn saith That his Name was Rioval a Prince here in Britain who gathered a good Army and Fleet together and with that subdued the People who lived on the Aremorican Coasts being then left destitute and unable to defend themselves For that was the effect of the Roman Government which was kept up by the force of the Roman Legions in all parts of it and so when these were broken the Nations were so unaccustomed to War that they lay open to all Invaders So that the Aggressors did generally succeed in their attempts where the Roman Legions were withdrawn and next to the wise Providence of God which ordereth all things there was no one cause which contributed so much to the miseries of those times and the strange Revolutions which hapned in
them as the Natives being not trained up to Martial Discipline but depending wholly on the Roman Legions for their Defence and security thence whatever People had the Courage to invade did usually take possession of the Countrey where the Roman Legions were at a distance or otherwise engaged against each other Thus in France the Goths the Burgundians the Franks and the Britains took possession of the several parts they attempted and the Goths and Vandals in Spain So Goths and Lombards in Italy it self So that it is not to be wondred if the Saxons prevailed here at last but with as much difficulty and after as many Battels as were fought by any People of that time without foreign Assistence But to return to the Aremorican Britains whether they came over under Rioval in the beginning of the distractions here when the People were so Rebellious against their Princes as Gildas relates or whether they went over to assist Constantine and his Son and so remained there I shall not determin But that the Britains were well settled there before Sampson Archbishop of York and his Company passed the Seas appears by what Mat. Paris saith That they went to their fellow Citizens and Countrey Men hoping to live more quietly there And after the death of the Bishop of Dole he was by the consent of the Britains put into his Place and from thence forwards exercised his Archiepiscopal power there the Kings of that Province not suffering his Successours there to pay any Obedience to the Archbishop of Tours Which begot a Suit which held 300 years in the Court of Rome and was this year manfully decided by Innocent III. as Mat. Paris there relates Who states the Case very unskilfully laying the weight of it upon the Archbishop's bringing over his Pall from York which the Pope had given him there Suppose this were true although the Popes gave no Palls then nor a great while after yet this were no reason to contest it in the Court of Rome so long together But the difficulty of the Case lay upon another point viz. according to the Old Canon of the Church If a Province were divided into two each Province was to have a Metropolitan Now this Reason held much stronger when new Kingdoms were erected out of the Roman Provinces For what Reason was there why the Bishop of Dole in the Kingdom of Bretagn should yield subjection to the Bishop of Tours in a distinct Kingdom and there was the fairer Colour for this when one actually an Archbishop before came to be settled there and from hence they insisted on a Prescription of a very long time wherein no Subjection had been made to the Bishop of Tours as appears by the account given of this Cause by Innocent III. in his Epistles lately published by Baluzius On the other side it was pleaded that all Britanny was under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tours but that the Britains conspiring against the King of France and setting up a Kingdom of their own they made use of Sampson Archbishop of York coming to establish a Metropolitan power within that Kingdom and upon Complaint made to Rome the Popes had put it upon this issue whether any of their Predecessors had granted the Pall to the Bishop of Dole which not being proved the Pope as it was easie to imagine gave Sentence against the Bishop of Dole But it is certain that they went upon a false suggestion viz. That the Kingdom of Bretagn was set up in Rebellion to the Kingdom of France For Childeric had not extended his Dominions in France as far as the Loir and before his time the Britains were in quiet possession of those parts of Aremorica and the best French Historians now grant that the Britains came thither in the time of Merovée who obtained but little in Gaul as Hadrianus Valesius confesseth And the Authour of the Life of Gildas observes That the Power of the Kings of France was very inconsiderable in the time of Childeric Son of Merovée at what time Gildas went over into Aremorica as his School-fellows under Iltutus Sampson and Paulus had done before him whereof one succeeded the other Sampson at Dole and the other was made Bishop of the Oxismii the most Northern People of Bretagn which Diocese is since divided into Three Treguier S. Pol de Leon and S. Brieu Here Gildas at the request of his Brethren who came out of Britain saith the Authour of his Life wrote his Epistle wherein he so sharply reproves the several Vices of the five Kings of Britain whom he calls by the Names of Constantine Aurelius Vortiporius Cuneglasus and Maglocunus and speaks to them all as then living The British History makes them to succeed each other Constantine according to that was killed in his third year by Aurelius Conanus He died in his second year and Vortiporius succeeding him Reigned four years After him he places Malgo and leaves Cuneglasus wholly out But that they Reigned at the same time in several parts of Britain is evident from Gildas because he saith He knew that Constantine was then living Now Constantine Reigning the first of these how could he speak to the four Kings that succeeded him if he were still living For there is no colour for imagining that Gildas still added his Reproof as one died and another succeeded for any one may discern it was written in one continued style and he writes to them all as then living without the least intimation that they succeeded each other Besides he calls Constantine the Issue of the impure Damnonian Lioness and at this time the Britains in the remote Western parts were separated from the other by the West Saxon Kingdom and therefore there is far less Probability that all the Britains at that time should be under one Monarch And where they had greatest freedom of living together they were divided into several Principalities For he whom Gildas calls Maglocunus is by the British Writers called Maelgun Guineth and Mailgunus mentioned by John of Tinmouth in the Life of St. Paternus and by Thaliessin in Sir John Price from whom it appears that he was King of North-Wales And as Gildas calls Vortiporius the Tyrant of the Demetae by whom the Inhabitants of South-Wales are understood Aurelius Conanus Archbishop Vsher thinks was King of Powisland which was sometime a third Kingdom And for Cuneglasus it seems probable he had the Command of the Northern Britains for it is plain from Bede they had a distinct Principality there All these Gildas doth very severely reprove for their several Vices and then taxes the Judges and Clergy to the Conclusion of his Epistle to the end they might repent of their Sins and acquit the just and wise Providence of God in the judgments he brought upon them which were very terrible and ended in the desolation of the Countrey and the ruine of the British Churches excepting onely those Remnants which were