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
examin'd Several Testimonies of Origen concerning the British Churches in his time The different Traditions about King Lucius The State of the Roman Province here overthrows his being King over all Britain Great probability there was such a King in some part of it and then converted to Christianity A Conjecture proposed in what part of Britain he reigned The most probable means of his Conversion and the Story cleared from Monkish Fables Of Dioclesian's Persecution in Britain and the stopping of it by the means of Constantius The flourishing of the British Churches under Constantine The reason onely of three British Bishops present at the Council of Arles The great Antiquity of Episcopal Government here Of the Flamines and Archiflamines of Geffrey of Monmouth how far agreeable to the Roman Constitution Maximinus set up a Pagan Hierarchy in imitation of the Christian. The Canons of the Council of Arles not sent to the Pope to confirm but to publish them HAving shew'd the great probability of the planting a Christian Church here in the Apostles time and that by St. Paul I am now to consider the Succession of this Church of which we have undoubted Evidence from the unquestionable Testimonies of Tertullian and Origen who mention it as a thing so very well known That they use it as an Argument against the Jews to prove Christ to have been the promised Messias because the uttermost parts of the Earth were given for his Possession Tertullian flourished as St. Jerome saith under Severus and his Son And in the time of Severus he wrote against the Jews as Baronius proves from several Passages in that Book In his time the Affairs of Britain were very well understood in other parts of the Roman Empire especially by Men so learned and inquisitive as Tertullian For Clodius Albinus having set up for the Empire in Britain and being beaten by Severus near Lyons he took care to secure this Province by sending Virius Lupus his Lieutenant hither But things growing troublesome here Severus himself undertook an Expedition hither and brought the Britains to such Terms That they were contented to live beyond the Wall which Severus built where Hadrian's Wall had been before The part of Britain beyond the Wall was called Caledonia as Dio saith And it is apparent that the Romans were at that time fully acquainted with the Condition of the Britains both within the Province and without And therefore Tertullian cannot be supposed to speak at random about this matter when he mentions the Nations of Gaul and the Britains with as much assurance as he doth his Countreymen the Moors for receiving Christianity And saith The Kingdom of Christ was advanced among them and that Christ was solemnly worshipped by them Tertullian was a man of too much understanding to expose himself to the contempt of the Jews by mentioning this as a thing so well known at that time if the Britains were then known to be no Christians Or if they had been such and were returned to Barbarism the Argument would have been stronger against him When therefore such a Passage doth not fall by chance from such a Writer but the force of an Argument depends upon it it is of so much greater weight How ridiculous would it appear for a man to prove that Popery is the Catholick Religion by instancing not onely in Italy and Spain as the Nations where it is universally received but in Great Britain and Denmark and Sweden No less was the absurdity then to prove Christ's universal Kingdom by enumerating Gaul and Britain with other Nations where Christ was worshipped if there were no Christian Churches at that time in being among them But there are two Objections against this Passage of Tertullian which must be removed 1. That he speaks of that part of Britain which was not under the Roman Power and the Conversion of it is said to be later than to be here mention'd by Tertullian For Joh. Fordon and Joh. Maior from an ancient Distick in both of them Christi transactis tribus annis atque ducentis Scotia Catholicam coepit inire Fidem say That the Christian Religion was received in Scotland in A. D. 203. about the seventh of Severus But this was so little a time before Tertullian's Writing that it could hardly be so well known in Africa as to afford strength to an Argument against the Jews To which I answer That it is true Tertullian doth add the greater Emphasis to his Argument by saying Et Britannorum inaccessa Romanis loca Christo vero subdita The Gospel had access to those parts of Britain whither the Romans had none Which doth prove that Christianity was then received beyond the Wall but not by the Scots who were not yet settled in those parts But by the old Britains who were driven thither as appears by the Account given by Xiphilin out of Dio who saith that the Britains were divided into two sorts the Maeatae and the Caledonii The former dwelt by the Wall and the latter beyond them These were the Extraprovincial Britains and were distinct both from the Picts and the Scots saith Joh. Fordon who carefully distinguisheth these three Nations when he speaks of their Wars with the Romans And he makes Fulgentius the Head of the Britains of Albany in the time of Severus But he supposes both the Scots and Picts to have been in the Northern parts long before and that the Scots received the Christian Faith in the time of Severus Victor being then Bishop of Rome who succeeded Eleutherius To whom saith Hector Boethius King Donald sent Embassadours to desire him to send Persons fit to instruct them in the Christian Faith And upon this saith he it was generally received in Scotland Dempster according to his custome is very warm in this matter and saith all their Annals and Histories agree that King Donald and the whole Kingdom of Scotland did then embrace Christianity And is angry with Baronius for putting off their Conversion to the time of Palladius But notwithstanding all his boasting of the consent of Annals and Histories the Scotichronicon is the onely Authority he hath to produce And in his Preface he saith That King Edward I. destroy'd all the Monuments of the Kingdom and it is somewhat unreasonable to complain of the want and to alledge the consent of them at the same time And besides he produceth something out of Fordon concerning Paschasius of Sicily being sent by Victor into Scotland and returning with a Message from King Donald which is not to be found in Fordon But as Baronius observes It is strange that so remarkable a Conversion should be ommitted not onely by Bede but by Marianus Scotus who mentions the Mission of Palladius And Prosper saith Vpon the Mission of Palladius who was made the first Bishop over the Scotish Christians the People who were barbarous before were made Christians But it is urged by Dempster not without
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
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
Person in this Island or that he had Royal Authority in some part of it or that he was converted to Christianity at that time or that the Christian Church here flourished by his means That there was such a Person who was a King and a Christian is proved besides the concurrence of so many Authours from Bede's time from the two Coins mention'd by Archbishop Vsher one Silver and the other Gold having an Image of a King on them with a Cross and the Letters of LVC as far as they could be discerned But if it be farther asked in what part of Britain this King Lucius lived I shall onely propose my Conjecture and leave it to the Judgment of others It is well known that the Romans were so well satisfied with the fidelity of Cogidunus that they bestow'd some Cities upon him And Tacitus saith he continued firm to the Roman Interest to his time And where Kings were faithfull to them the Romans were kind to their Posterity and kept them up in the same dignity as long as they behaved themselves as they expected from them Of this we have a clear instance in Herod's Posterity For Archelaus Herodes Antipas and Philip his Sons succeeded into their shares of his Kingdom Then Herod Agrippa his Grandchild by Aristobulus was made King by Caius Caligula whose Government was inlarged by Claudius and his Brother Herod had the Kingdom of Chalcis given him Sometime after his Father's death Claudius bestow'd first the Kingdom of Chalcis upon his Son Agrippa then the Tetrarchy of Philip which was inlarged afterwards by Nero and he continued till the War and was the last King over the Jews Now from hence we observe That the Romans thought it no ill policy in some Cases to continue the same Royal dignity to the Children of those who deserved so well of them as Cogidunus had done And it seems most probable to me that where Ptolemy places the Regni were the Cities which Cogidunus had the rule over not from the Name but from the Circumstances of those places which have fewer Roman Monuments or Towns than any other in Britain and therefore were most likely still under their own Prince who kept up the British customs Whereever the Romans inhabited they may be traced by their Ways by their Buildings by their Coins by their Urns by their Inscriptions But scarce any thing of this nature could be found in Surry or Sussex by the most diligent Enquirers Leland indeed discover'd some Roman Coins near Kingston upon Thames where others have been taken up since but Camden could hear of no Roman Antiquities thereabouts And some suppose the place where those Coins were taken up to have been a Station of the Roman Souldiers under Asclepiodotus when he marched that way from Portsmouth to London in the Expedition against Allectus If so it was too late for the days of King Lucius All that Camden pretends to is onely a Military way near Ockley which was necessary for the conveniency of the Roman Souldiers passing to the remoter parts of the Province and some Coins about Gatton but as to his Noviomagus which he will have to be Woodcote in Surrey Mr. Somner hath well proved from the course of the Roman Itinerary that it must lie in Kent in the Road to Portus Rutupis and Woodcote is as far from it as London In all Sussex there is no remainder of any Roman Building or Way or Colony or Coins yet discovered to the World except towards the Sea side which the Romans kept to themselves In Antoninus Pius his time Seius Saturnius was Archigubernus in Classe Britannica Which shews that the Romans had then a Fleet here and that he was Admiral of it And in after-times the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam had several Garrisons on the Sea side for Security of the Coasts as appears by the Notitia Imperii where the Places are set down among which two were on the coasts of Sussex Anderida and Portus Adurni By the former our learned Antiquaries Camden and Selden understand Newenden in Kent but that stands too much within Land Mr. Somner in a MS. discourse of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent rather thinks it to be Pemsey in Sussex or Hastings as more agreeing with Gildas who saith that the Romans placed their Forts for Security of the Coasts in litore Oceani ad Meridionalem Plagam upon the very Coasts And so the rest of them stood as Reculver Richborough Dover Lim which were all in Kent and the Portus Adurni was Aldrington near Shoreham in Sussex From hence it appears that the Romans being secure of the Coasts and having their Souldiers dispersed in the Colonies about and being so near the Metropolis at London where the chief Governours of this part of Britain resided They might better permit a British King to govern these parts of the Countrey And this is the most probable account I can think of as to this King Lucius within the Roman Province Sir H. Spelman would bring him to his Iceni but without any colour of Probability Lucius saith he was the son of Coilus Coilus of Marius Marius of Arviragus And what then Some he saith would have him to be Prasutagus who was King over the Iceni But doth not Tacitus say that Prasutagus died before the Revolt of the Britains under Boadicea And that he left Nero his heir and his two Daughters hoping thereby to secure his Kingdom If he were Arviragus he was dead before the Revolt of the Iceni And if Marius were his Son how comes he never to be mention'd in the Story afterwards no not in that most remarkable Battel between his Mother and Suetonius Paulinus But Hector Boethius calls Arviragus one of the Iceni as though his authority were to be mention'd against Tacitus who was the Geffrey of Scotland so many and so improbable are his Fictions Baronius after trying several ways to reconcile the Tradition of King Lucius with the Roman Story concludes with that as the most probable That he was a King under the Roman Power in Britain such as Prasutagus was But he was onely King over the Iceni and not over all Britain and although among the Britains there were many Kings over particular Cities as they then called the People under one Government yet there was no one King over the whole Island But in Cases of great difficulty they pitched upon one as Supreme as on Cassibelan upon the Invasion of Caesar So that the old British Government was neither Popular as some pretend nor under one Monarchy but the People were govern'd by several petty Monarchs as appears by the unquestionable Testimonies of Diodorus Siculus Strabo and Pomponius Mela Fert populos Reges populorum saith Mela Olim Regibus parebant saith Tacitus which prove both the Antiquity and Number of British Monarchs And what Dio saith of a Democratical Government
into Britain the 39th saith William of Malmsbury But neither of them mentions any violent Death by the hands of his Enemies and that after a Victory by the Britains under Aurelius Ambrosius which are such Circumstances they could not easily have omitted if they had then heard of them But if they had heard of them and yet left them out it is a shrewd Sign they gave no Credit to them We are then to consider that Geffrey of Monmouth according to Leland flourished in the time of H. I. Of King Stephen say Bale and Pits but Leland observes That he dedicated his Translation of Merlin to Alexander Bishop of Lincoln the same that was Henry of Huntingdon 's Patron And William of Malmsbury dedicates his History to the same Robert of Gloucester Son to Henry I. to whom Geffrey dedicates his Translation of the British History who died 12 of King Stephen So that in all probability Geffrey's Book was seen by both these Historians and since they do not follow him where they have occasion to mention the same matters They plainly discover they preferr'd Nennius before him whom both of them follow But it appears by H. Huntingdon he then passed under the Name of Gildas But these two Historians thought it best for them to decline taking any publick notice of Geffrey's History it being so great a Novelty then and probably enough in some esteem with Robert of Gloucester whose Father as Giraldus Cambrensis saith had lately subdued the Britains in Wales and such a History seemed to add to his Father's Glory But after Robert's death William of Newborough very frankly delivers his Opinion of it charging the Original with Falshood and the Translatour with Insincerity Geffrey in the Conclusion of his History mentions William of Malmsbury and H. of Huntingdon as then Writing the English History But he bids them not to meddle with the British Kings since they had not the British MS. which Walter of Oxford brought out of Britany But they do not forbear to make use of Nennius and Huntingdon transcribes several things out of him But they do not inlarge or alter or adorn their History in one Point from the British MS. although in all likelyhood set forth before their Death As to what he next adds That after his Victory over the Saxons Aurelius Ambrosius called the Princes and Great Men together at York and gave order for repairing the Churches which the Saxons destroyed there is far greater probability in it For after the Battel at Wippedsfleet which was seventeen years after the Saxons coming H. Huntingdon saith Things remained quiet for a good while between the Britains and Saxons and in that time it is reasonable to presume that Ambrosius and the Nobles and People did their endeavour towards the recovering the honour of their Churches as well as of the Kingdom And after the care he took in other places saith Geffrey he marched to London which had suffered as well as other Cities and having called the dispersed Citizens together he went about the repairing of it all his design being the restoring the Church and Kingdom From thence he went to Winchester and to Salisbury And in the passage thither Geffrey launches out to purpose in his History of Stonehenge translated saith he by Merlin out of Ireland to make a Monument for the British Nobles slain there by Hengist 's Treachery Which is such an Extravagancy that it is to be wondred any should follow him in it and yet Matt. Westminster transcribes the main of it and Walter Coventry sets it down for authentick History But he adds two circumstances which make it seem probable that Stonehenge had some Relation to Ambrosius viz. That here Ambrosius was Crowned and was not long after buried from whom Polydore Virgil makes it the Monument of Ambrosius and John of Tinmouth in the Life of Dubricius calls it Mons Ambrosii And the Name of Ambresbury near it doth much confirm the probability That it had rather a respect to Ambrosius than either to the Romans or the Danes But I cannot now insist on this Matthew Westminster confirms Geffrey's Relation concerning the great Zeal of Ambrosius in repairing the British Churches every where and setting up Divine Worship in them and giving great incouragement to the Clergy to perform all Divine Offices and particularly to pray for the Prosperity of the Church and Kingdom But Geffrey adds yet farther concerning him that in a solemn Council of the Britains he appointed two Metropolitans for the two Vacant Sees at that time viz. Sampson one of eminent piety for York and Dubricius for Caer-leon This saith Matt. Westminster was done An. Dom. 490. and he makes them both to live and flourish An. Dom. 507. But he saith That Sampson was afterwards driven over to Aremorica and there was Archbishop of Dole among the Britains For Anno Dom. 561. he saith Another Sampson succeeded in that See the former who came out of Great Britain to the Less Sigebert of the old Edition Anno Dom. 566. speaks of Sampson then Archbishop of Dole Kinsman to Maglorius who came from the Britain beyond the Sea to that on this side This second Sampson's Life is extant in the Bibliotheca Floriacensis where he is said to have been born in Britain and the Scholar of Iltutus and consecrated by Dubricius But Giraldus Cambrensis saith The Pall was carried over from Wales to Dole in the time of another Sampson who was the 25 th from St. David and went over because of the Plague which discoloured People like the Iaundice and therefore called Flava Pestis Which is transcribed by Roger Hoveden But here are several Mistakes in this Account For there was no such thing as a Pall then known or used in the Western Church And if this Sampson went over on the occasion of that Plague there could not be 25. between St. David and him For in the Life of St. Teliaus St. David's Sister's Son that Plague is described and then Sampson is said to be Archbishop of Dole and to have received Teliaus and his Company with great joy having been School-fellows under Dubricius and Sampson being consecrated by him But still we have two Sampsons Archbishops of Dole and in the time of the great Controversie about that Archbishoprick of which afterwards it was a Question from which the Title was derived And Innocent III. as Giraldus relates said it was from this Sampson Archbishop of York but the Sammarthani onely mention him that came from St. Davids when Maglorius succeeded among the Aremorican Britains but we are not yet come to them It is observed by H. of Huntingdon that after the Britains had a little respite from their Enemies they fell into Civil dissensions among themselves which is very agreeable to what Gildas had said Of this the British History gives no improbable account when it relates that one of Vortigern's Sons called Pascentius raised a Rebellion in the
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
makes use of no other but where he follows Hector's own inventions The remainder of his Story is That things being quieted here Arthur goes over into Lesser Britain and leaves the Government to his Nephew Mordred But while he was abroad some had prevailed with him to declare Constantine the Son of Cador his Successour being born in Britain which being done Mordred set up for himself and in a Battel about Humber saith he Mordred was killed and Arthur mortally wounded Thus Buchanan having picked what he thought fit out of Hector concludes with a bitter Invective against the fabulous Relations about Arthur But he gives him an extraordinary Character saying he was certainly a great Man of mighty Courage and wonderfull kindness to his Countrey preserving them from Slavery and keeping up or restoring the true Religion And that is the Subject I am now to consider viz. The State of Religion here in King Arthur 's days It was under great Persecution almost whereever the Saxons came who were cruel both to the Bodies and Souls of the poor Britains Most of the Southern and Western parts were under their Tyranny and Brian Twyne quotes a passage out of Matt. Westminster which is not so full in the printed Copies concerning the Persecution of the British Christians in the Eastern parts of the Land For saith he Anno Dom. 527. The Pagans came out of Germany and took possession of the Countrey of the East-Angles omni crudelitatis genere Christianos affecerunt They tormented the Christians with all sorts of Cruelty Although this be wanting in other Copies yet it may be reasonably presumed The Saxons using the British Christians in such a manner in the most places where they prevailed It is true that Malmsbury saith many of the Britains submitted to Cerdic and it is probable they were the better used for doing so Tho. Rudburn saith That Cerdic allow'd Liberty of professing the Christian Religion to the Cornish upon a certain Tribute I rather think that Cerdic never went so far but left that part to the Britains who still continued there For in Gildas his time Constantine is said to be King of the Danmonii and Camden observes out of Marianus Scotus that Anno Dom. 820. the Britains and Saxons had a terrible Fight at Camelford in Cornwall which Leland thinks to have been Camlan where King Arthur fought with Mordred and near which is a Stone saith Mr. Carew which bears Arthur 's Name but now called Atry To prove what I have said that the West-Saxon Kingdom did not extend to Cornwall we may observe that William of Malmsbury saith That Ceaulin Granchild to Cerdic was the first who took Gloucester Cicester and Bath from the Britains and drove them thence into the Rocky and Woody places And in the time of Athelstan above 400 years after the coming of the Saxons the Cornish Britains did inhabit in Exceter and were driven thence by him beyond the River Tamar and confined by that as the other Britains were by the Wye This shews that the Britains in Cornwall and thereabouts were free from the Yoke of the West-Saxon Kingdom As to the Northern Britains they came to some agreement after a while with Oeca and Ebusa whom Hengist sent thither and that they had their own Government and the Christian Religion among them appears by the History of Ceadwalla a Prince of these Britains in Bede But these were but small remnants in the Northern and Western parts As to the Eastern we have had the Testimony of Matt. Westminster already And although the Kingdom of the East-Angles did not begin till afterwards about Anno Dom. 575. yet in the ninth year of Cerdic about Anno Dom. 517. Huntingdon observes That many Angles or Saxons were come out of Germany and took possession of the Countrey of the East-Angles and Mercia and whereever they prevailed the poor British Christians suffered to the highest extremity Which is enough to considering Men to overthrow the credit of the supposed Diploma of King Arthur to the Vniversity of Cambridge which bears date Anno Dom. 531. But Brian Twyne hath brought no fewer than 15 Arguments against it which are far more than needed For I cannot think that Dr. Cajus in earnest believed it for he goes not about to prove the Diploma but King Arthur And I cannot think it any honour or service to so famous and ancient an Vniversity to produce any such sespected Diplomata or Monkish Legends to prove its Antiquity It is not certain in whose possession London was at that time from whence the Charter is dated For the Kingdom of the East-Saxons was then set up by Erkinwin and London commonly was under that and that Kingdom as Malmsbury observes had the same limits which the Diocese of London now hath viz. Essex Middlesex and part of Hartfordshire Matt. Westminster agrees that Middlesex was under the Kingdom of the East-Saxons but he will not yield that Theonus Bishop of London did retire with his Clergy into Wales till Anno Dom. 586. and then he confesses that he and Thadioc Bishop of York when they saw all their Churches demolished or turned into Idol Temples did for their security retire thither And there was the freest Exercise of their Religion kept up even in the Reign of King Arthur There flourished the Schools of Literature set up by Dubricius and Iltutus and there were the Persons of greatest Reputation for Learning and Sanctity in the British Churches such as Dubricius Iltutus Paulinus Gundleus Cadocus Sampson Paternus Daniel and St. David above the rest whose Reputation continues to this day and was preserved in the Saxon Churches of Britain as appears by the Breviary of Salisbury where nine Lessons are appointed upon his day And Maihew observes that this was by a Provincial Constitution in the Province of Canterbury But the nine Lessons were taken out of the first Chapter of the Legend of his Life a little being added at the end concerning his Death It is the just complaint of Bollandus that there is nothing extant concerning him which was written near his own time and what is extant hath many fabulous mixtures so that it is hard to find out the Truth The oldest MS. of his Life he saith is that of Vtretcht which he hath published the next he accounts is that in Colganus which he would have thought to be the Life written by Ricemarchus quoted by Archbishop Vsher whom he supposes to have lived before Giraldus Cambrensis who transcribed much out of him But Colganus withall intimates That the Life was taken out of an old Book wherein Augustin Macraidin the Authour of the Annals of Ulster had written many things and probably might write that too and to confirm this Bollandus observes onely a little difference in Style between this and the Vtretcht MS. But if we add to these Giraldus his Life with that of John of Tinmouth or Capgrave we
judge whether by Scotia Bede understands the Northern parts of Britain or Ireland But after all doth not Bede say that the Island Hy did belong to Britain as a part of it And what then follows Doth not Bede in the same place say it was given by the Picts not by the Scots to the Scotish Monks who came from Ireland So that upon the whole matter that which Bede understands by Scotia seems to be Ireland although he affirms the Scots to have setled in the Northern parts of Britain and to have set up a Kingdom there From whence there appears no probability of Palladius's being sent to the Scots in Britain Bede saying nothing of their Conversion when he so punctually sets down the Conversion of the South Picts by Ninias a British Bishop and of the Northern Picts by Columba a Scotish or Irish Presbyter But if Palladius were sent to the Scots in Ireland how came St. Patrick to be sent so soon after him To this the Bishop of St. Asaph answers that Palladius might die so soon after his Mission that Pope Celestine might have time enough to send St. Patrick before his own death And this he makes out by laying the several circumstances of the Story together as they are reported by Authours which the Advocate calls a laborious Hypothesis and elaborate contrivance to divert all the unanswerable Authorities proving that Palladius was seâ—t to them in Scotland A. D. 431. What those unanswerable Authorities are which prove Palladius sent to the Scots in Britain I cannot find And for all that I see by this Answer the onely fault of the Bishop's Hypothesis is that it is too exact and doth too much clear the appearance of contradiction between the two Missions 3. As to Dr. Hammond's Testimony who is deservedly called by the Advocate a learned and Episcopal English Divine it is very easily answered For 1. He looks on the whole Story of the Scots Conversionfs as very uncertainly set down by Authours 2. He saith that Bozius applies the Conversion under Victor to Ireland then called Scotia for which he quotes Bede 3. That neither Marianus Scotus nor Bede do take the least notice of it 4. That if Prosper's Words be understood of the Scots in Britain yet they do not prove the thing designed by his Adversaries viz. that the Churches there were governed by Presbyters without Bishops for Prosper supposes that they remained barbarous still and therefore the Plantation was very imperfect and could not be understood of any formed Churches But the Advocate very wisely conceals one passage which overthrows his Hypothesis viz. that they could not be supposed to receive the first Rudiments of their Conversion from Rome viz. under Pope Victor since the Scots joined with the Britains in rejecting the Roman Customs From whence we see that Dr. Hammond was far from being of the Advocate 's mind in this matter and what he proposes as to some Rudiments of Christianity in Scotland before Palladius his coming thither was onely from an uncertain Tradition and for reconciling the seeming differences between Bede and Prosper or rather for reconciling Prosper to himself But I remember the Advocate 's observation in the case of their Predecessour's Apology against Edward I. viz. that they designed as most Pleaders do to gain their Point at any rate and how far this eloquent Advocate hath made good this observation through his Discourse I leave the Reader to determine Having thus gone through all the material parts of the Advocate 's Book I shall conclude with a serious Protestation that no Pique or Animosity led me to this Undertaking no ill Will to the Scotish Nation much less to the Royal Line which I do believe hath the Advantage in point of Antiquity above any other in Europe and as far as we know in the World But I thought it necessary for me to enquire more strictly into this Defence of such pretended Antiquities both because I owed so much service to so worthy and excellent a Friend as the Bishop of St. Asaph and because if the Advocate 's Arguments would hold good they would overthrow several things I had asserted in the following Book and withall I was willing to let the learned Nobility and Gentry of that Nation see how much they have been imposed upon by Hector Boethius and his followers and that the true Honour and Wisedom of their Nation is not concerned in defending such Antiquities which are universally disesteemed among all judicious and inquisitive Men. And it would far better become Persons of so much Ingenuity and Sagacity to follow the Examples of other European Nations in rejecting the Romantick Fables of the Monkish times and at last to settle their Antiquities on firm and solid Foundations As to the following Book it comes forth as a Specimen of a greater Design if God gives me Life and Opportunity which is to clear the most important Difficulties of Ecclesiastical History And because I look on a General Church-History as too heavy a Burthen to be undergone by any Man when he is fit for it by Age and Consideration I have therefore thought it the better way to undertake such particular Parts of it which may be most usefull and I have now begun with these Antiquities of the British Churches which may be followed by others as I see occasion But I hope none will have just cause to complain that I have not used diligence or faithfulness enough in this present Work or that I have set up Fancies and Chimaera's of my own instead of the true Antiquities of the British Churches I have neither neglected nor transcribed those who have written before me and if in some things I differ from them it was not out of the Humour of opposing any great Names but because I intended not to deliver other Mens judgements but my own ERRATA In the Preface PAge 6. line 35. for but he did it reade for doing it p. 23. l. 31. for And r. Surely p. 36. l. 32. for but r. yet p. 38. l. 10. for Cladroe r. Cadroe p. 41. l. 39. after had insert made p. 44. l. 33. for a Generation r. three Generations and for overdoe r. not doe p. 61. l. 37. for foelix r. Salix In the Book PAge 2. l. 10. dele and. p. 25. l. 19. for under floo r. understood p. 59. l. 20. for with r. and. p. 70. for Dioclesian r. Diocletian and so throughout p. 115. l. 14. for Alexander r. Alexander p. 137. l. 7. for put p. 179. l. 11. for Council r. Church p. 194. l. 11. for Frecalphus r. Freculphus p. 209. l. 39. instead of but r. whereas p. 241. l. 7 8. dele But now the Britains were p. 256. l. 26. for Edecus r. Ederus p. 266. l. 35. for Egypt r. Europe p. 276. l. 37. for Erimthon r. Erimhon p. 281. l. 23. for Eanus r. Edanus p. 285. l. 18. for Authemius r. Anthemius p. 306. l. 29.
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
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
Picts and the Scots after they had beaten them and then took occasion to quarrell with the Britains Onely they still endeavour'd to keep Vortigern firm to them To this purpose Nennius tells the Story of Hengist's fair Daughter Rovena and how Vortigern was insnared by her to the great dissatisfaction of the Britains Hector Boethius saith That Vodinus Bishop of London was killed by Hengist for reproving Vortigern for that Marriage But we must not be too strict upon Hector to put him to produce his Vouchers And the British History adds that Hengist being a subtile Man insinuated still into Vortigern That his own People did not love him and that they would depose him and set up Aurelius Ambrosius and by such Arts they widen'd the Distance between him and his People when they designed nothing less than the destruction of both It is certain by what Gildas and Bede have left that these heats soon brake out into open Flames to the Ruine and Desolation of the Countrey But how the War began and by what means it was first managed on the British side is not so clear But Nennius saith That when Vortigern 's wickedness grew so great as to marry his own Daughter he was condemned in solemn Council of the British Nation both Clergy and Laity and upon the Advice of his Nobles he withdrew himself from Affairs to a private Castle But the British History makes it worse viz. That the Britains forsook him and set up his Son Vortimer who behaved himself with great Courage and Resolution against the Saxons And then reckons up four Battels which he fought with them The first upon the Derwent the second at Episford or rather Alesford the third upon the Sea-shore when he drove them into their Ships and so home but the fourth is not mention'd After which Geffrey relates Vortimer's being poison'd by his Mother-in-law and the restoring of Vortigern and his calling for the Saxons back again Nennius speaks of Vortimer's fighting with Hengist and Horsus and adds his Success to have been so great as to have driven them into the Isle of Thanet and that there he besieged and beat and terrified them to that degree That they sent into Germany for fresh Succours by which they were enabled to manage the War with various Success against the Britains And then reckons up the three Battels just as Geffrey doth Onely the last he saith was upon the Sea-shore juxta lapidem tituli a little after which he saith that Vortimer died without any mention of Poison But he saith before his death he gave command to have his Body buried on the Sea-shore where the Saxons fled which was neglected and to which Nennius imputes their Return after which they could never be driven out Because as he saith It was the Divine Pleasure more than their own Valour which made them settle here And it is he that orders and rules the Nations of the Earth And who can resist his Will It is plain by all this that Nennius consulted the Honour of the British Nation as much as it was possible and nowhere useth that freedom which Gildas doth in setting forth the great Sins among them which provoked God to punish them in so severe a manner The Place where Vortimer desired to be buried is called by Nennius Lapis Tituli from whence Camden and Archbishop Vsher conceive it to be Stonar in the Isle of Thanet near Richborrow but Nennius saith onely It was upon the Shore of the French Sea From whence Mr. Somner rather concludes it to be Folkstone in Kent because of its lofty Situation whereas Stonar lies in a low and flat level apt to Inundations But then Nennius must have mistaken Lapis Tituli for Lapis Populi and I dare say Nennius was guilty of greater mistakes than that But he farther observes that in the ancient Records the name is not Stonar but Estonar which signifies the Eastern Border Shore or Coast. Matthew of Westminster gives this Account of these Proceedings That the British Nobility forsaking Vortigern set up Vortimer who with their Assistence pursued the Saxons to Derwent and there killed many of them Which seems to have been Darent in Kent thence Dartford as Camden observes is the same with Darenford But he makes Vortigern to have fled away with the Saxon Army and to have given them all the Assistence he could And then saith he Vortimer began to restore the Britains Possessions to them and to rebuild their Churches and to shew kindness to the Churchmen The next year he saith The Saxons fought again with the Britains at Ailesford and after a sharp Fight the Saxons fled and great multitudes of them were slain Not long after Vortimer with his Brothers Catigern and Pascentius and the whole Nation of the Britains made War with the Saxons and in Battel Catigern was killed by Horsus and Horsus by Vortimer upon which the Saxon Army fled The next year he saith Hengist fought three Battels with Vortimer and at last he was forced to go back into Germany and four years after Vortimer saith he was poison'd Anno Dom. 460. and buried in London and then Vortigern recalled the Saxons William of Malmsbury saith That the Britains and Saxons agreed for seven years after their Landing and then Vortimer finding their Deceit incensed his Father and the Britains against them and so for twenty years there was continual War and light Skirmishes and four pitched Battels In the first he makes their Fortune equal Horsa being killed on one side and Catigis on the other In the rest the Saxons being always superiour and Vortimer dead a Peace was made And so the Britains Affairs went ill till Ambrosius recover'd them Henry of Huntingdon relates this Story after a different manner He tells us That Vortigern after the Marriage of Hengist's Daughter was so hated that he withdrew to the Mountains and Woods and that he and his Castle were consumed together After which Ambrosius Aurelianus with Vortigern's two Sons Vortimer and Catiger fought the Saxons And he makes the first Battel at Ailestreu or Elstree the next after Vortimer's Death at Creganford or Crayford in which he saith the Britains were quite beaten out of Kent and from thence he begins the Saxons Kingdom of Kent The next he saith was at Wippedsflede which was so terrible on both Sides That from thence he saith That the Saxons and Britains did not disturb each other for a great while they remaining within Kent and the Britains quarrelling among themselves Florentius Wigorniensis therein differs from the rest that he makes the Battel at Aegelsthrep to have been between Vortigern and Hengist But he saith after the Battel at Creccanford the Britains fled to London and left Kent to the Saxons Wherein he follows the Saxon Annals as he doth in the Account of the two other Battels that at Wippedsfleot and that which he calls the great Victory over the Britains
North against Ambrosius among the Britains who were overcome by him and put to flight but afterwards he hired a Saxon to poison Ambrosius at Winchester This saith Matthew Westminster happen'd Anno Dom. 497. But we are not to pass over what he affirms of him Anno Dom. 485. viz. That he commanded in the Battel at Mecredsburn against Aella and his Sons in which they were so much worsted as to send home for Supplies as he saith This Aella and his Sons Cymen Plenting and Cissa came into Britain Anno Dom. 477. and landed at a place from his eldest Son called Cymenshore on the Coasts of Sussex Camden saith it hath lost its Name But he proves from a Charter of Cedwalla to the Church of Selsey it must be near Wittering Here Aella and his Army fought the Britains at his first Landing and forced them to retire to Andredeswald say the Saxon Annals and Matt. Westminster Florentius and Huntingdon The Saxon Annals and Huntingdon call it Andredesleage by that no question is meant the vast Wood which began in Kent and ran through Sussex into Hampshire called by the Britains Coid Andred by the Saxons Andred and Andreswald from whence as Mr. Somner observes that part of Kent where the Wood stood is still called the Weald and Lambard observes that no Monuments of Antiquity are to be met with in the Weald either of Kent or Sussex The Saxons after this Battel continued to inhabit on the Shore till at last the Britains finding them to incroach farther resolved to fight them at a place called Mecredsburn And a different account is given of the Success of this Battel The Saxon Annals and Ethelwerd onely mention it boasting of no Victory Florentius makes it a clear Victory on the Saxon side Matt. Westminster saith Aella quitted the field but confesseth the Britains had great loss H. of Huntingdon saith It was a drawn Battel both Armies having sustained great damage and avoiding each other After this Aella and Cissa say the Saxon Annals besieged Andredescester and killed all the Inhabitants leaving not one Britain alive and so Florentius and Matt. Westminster relate it But he saith That the Britains came out of the Wood and galled the Saxons so much that they were forced to divide their Army and the Inhabitants perished by Famine as well as by the Sword And he observes that the Saxons utterly demolished the City and the place where it stood was in his time shewed to Travellers Therefore the question among our Antiquaries which was the Anderida of the Ancients Newenden or Hastings or Pemsey is quite out of doors unless one of these be proved to be built in the place of Anderida since Matt. Westminster's days which were towards the end of Edw. 3. Those words Camden applies onely to H. of Huntingdon and he saith it was new built in Edw. 1. his time and therefore called Newenden but they are likewise Matt. Westminster 's who lived after that time and therefore it cannot be Newenden if it were rebuilt in the time of Edw. 1. for he saith The desolate place was shewed in his time unless one transcribed the other without any regard to the difference of their own times After Ambrosius his death according to the British History his Brother Vther Pendragon succeeded who routed the Saxons in the North relieved York besieged by them took the Sons of Hengist Prisoners marched to London and there called a Parliament and was solemnly Crowned and fell out with Goalois Duke of Cornwall about his Wife Igerna and under his shape had King Arthur by her but her Husband was killed at the Siege of his Castle After which it is said that he overcame the Saxons at Verulam where he was after poisoned by their means and his Son Arthur succeeded This is the summ of what is there more at large related but taking it all together it is a very blind and partial account of the proceedings between the Britains and Saxons of that time For even Matt. Westminster Anno Dom. 494 takes notice of Cerdic and Kenric his Son Landing with new Forces at a place called from him Cerdicshore near Yarmouth saith Camden where the name Cerdicsand still remains and fought the Britains at their first Landing till they were forced to withdraw and leave room for them who after went into the Western parts and laid the foundation of the Kingdom of the West Saxons To the same purpose Florentius Ethelwerd and Huntingdon Seven years after him came Port and his two Sons Bleda and Magla and arrived at Portsmouth which had its Name from him as the same Authours inform us from the Saxon Annals Now how comes Geffrey to think of none of these but onely of Hengist's two Sons in the North Besides he lets slip one of the greatest Battels that was fought between Cerdic and Nathanleod and pretends to give no account at all of it This the Saxon Annals Florentius Ethelwerd and Matt. Westminster all place Anno Dom. 508. But Huntingdon the sixtieth year after the first coming of the Saxons This Nazaleod as he calls him was the greatest King of the Britains one of great Fame and Pride from whom the Countrey about Charford did take its Name At this place the whole Forces of the Britains were gathered together and Cerdic procured assistence from Aesc of Kent from Aella of Sussex from Port and his Sons so that here was a pitched Battel of the Strength of both sides and Nazaleod behaved himself with so much Courage that he drove Cerdic out of the Field and pursued him which his Son who commanded the other Wing perceiving followed him close and cut him off and 5000 of his Men who fled upon the death of their King And from this memorable Battel the Place was called Cerdicsford and since Charford upon the Aven between Salisbury and Ringwood But who was this mighty King of the Britains who lost his Life in this Battel Mr. Camden professes he cannot ghess unless it were Aurelius Ambrosius whose Name he observes the Saxon Annalists never mention nor the Battels wherein they were worsted And the British History is even with them for that which takes no notice of this great Fight wherein their King was slain Matt. Westminster will not have him to be King but onely to be General under Vther who was then sick which contradicts Ethelwerd and Huntingdon and Florentius who affirm him to have been then King and as Huntingdon saith Rex Maximus Britannorum which seems to imply that there were more Kings then among the Britains as there were among the Saxons and that one was the Chief as in the Heptarchy Archbishop Vsher thinks this King was the same whom the British History calls Vther and that Nathanleod was his true Name and Vther was a Nick-name to denote his fierceness as the Annotatour on Nennius calls Arthur Mab Vter in the British Tongue for the same reason And so Arthurus in Latine
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