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
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
by those of his Bed-chamber These are sad Stories if they were true but the comfort is there appears yet no better Authority than that of Hector for them For Fordon hath nothing of all this And Buchanan and Lesly take them upon Hector's Credit They served Buchanan's purpose well enough as appears by his Book De jure Regni apud Scotos And therefore he was willing to let them stand in History being none of his Invention and knowing what use was to be made of them Donaldus Brother to Ethodius was chosen in his room and here Hector falls in with Fordon about Fulgentius one of the Royal British Race who revolted from the Romans which Fordon had from Geffrey of Monmouth who calls him Fulgenius and saith he was driven with the Britains into Albany But after in a Fight with Severus at York they were both killed But in this Hector was ashamed to follow them allowing Severus to die a natural death and Fulgentius to survive him As to Donald's embracing Christianity he follows Fordon but never quotes him And here he never mentions Veremundus As though so considerable a Point of History needed no Authority but his own He concludes this Book with a brief Account of Ethodius Son to the former who for his ill Government was confined by his Nobles and killed by his Guards In the Sixth Book he begins with a Convention of the Estates for the choice of a new King And they set up his Son Athirco who gave great hopes at first but falling into Debauchery his Nobles combined against him and finding no way to escape he killed himself Nathalacus Head of the Conspiracy succeeds who was for a time Popular afterwards Cruel to that degree as raised a general hatred of him which ended in a Design to destroy him Wherein they were prevented by one of his greatest Confidents who stabbed him Then Findocus eldest Son to Athirco recover'd the Crown who proved an excellent Prince but was at last murthered by two Villains his Brother Carantius being privy to it The Murtherers were executed but Carantius fled and was afterwards a great Souldier under Probus Carus and Dioclesian This Carantius is the same whom the Roman Writers call Carausius as Hector afterwards confesses who set up for himself in Britain But saith he he purposely disguised himself abroad Geffrey of Monmouth makes him a Britain and calls him Carassius Fordon tells the main of the Story of Carausius well enough onely inlarging on the Leagues he made with the Scots and Picts And Gothorius Nephew to Fulgentius who ruled over the Northern Britains But whence had Hector this Information That he was Carantius Son to Athirco and Brother to Findocus Buchanan is not ashamed to relate the Story of Carantius as far as to his passing into the Roman Army and there stops But afterwards he speaks of Carausius his Actions in Britain without any farther mention of Carantius Which shews that Buchanan took and left what he pleased out of Hector's History without being obliged by any Authority he produced to carry it on as he found it there After the Death of Findocus his Brother Donald succeeded who was soon killed by Donald of the Isles who usurped the Kingdom and was at last killed by a Conspiracy whereof Crathlintus Son to Findocus was the chief Who immediately took possession of the Crown After him succeeded Fincormachus both these died peaceably Then arose a mighty Contest about the Regency between the three Nephews of Crathlintus At first Romachus prevailed but Governing cruelly he was taken off Then follow'd Angusianus who was killed in Battel by the Picts After him Fethelmachus killed in his Bed by his Harper And last of all Eugenius killed in Battel by the Romans And soon after by the Instigation of the Picts their mortal Enemies the Scots were universally banished out of Britain by order of Maximus the Roman General whither they returned not till about forty years after under Fergus II. And in this as to the main part of this last Tragedy Fordon agrees with Hector viz. That it was occasion'd by the Romans joining with the Picts against the Scots in the time of Eugenius who were not onely beaten by them but driven out of Britain into Ireland and Norway and other Countries This is the Substance of what these Scotish Antiquaries deliver concerning their remotest Antiquities to the time of Fergus II. But several Arguments are of late produced to justifie the History of Scotland as it is delivered by Hector Boethius out of Veremundus and his other Authours which must be briefly considered before I proceed to the Irish Antiquities And it is alledged that the Scotish Antiquities as delivered by him for it is concerning Hector's Authority which I dispute have been received with great Applause for many hundreds of years by all Historians Antiquaries and Criticks of other Nations who had any occasion to mention their Affairs It will go a great way with me if it be made appear that there was any such account received among Learned Antiquaries in any part of the World before Hector's time But I cannot find any one Antiquary no not in Scotland before his time who gives the same Account that Hector doth The Tradition of the Scots peopling that part of the Island long before Fergus II. I grant was a much elder Tradition and is embraced by Fordon and probably by others before him But Fordon doth not own the Succession of the same number of Kings and in such a manner as Hector delivers them From whence then came Hector to know so much more than Fordon in these matters I yield that there were some ancient Chronica before Fordon which he often quotes But still the Argument is the stronger against Hector For if Fordon had all those Helps and yet knew nothing of those particulars it is a vehement Presumption against Hector that he took too much Liberty in those many particulars which Fordon passed over as having nothing to say about them The more Copies they have of Fordon in their Monasteries the more easily they may be convinced how little Hector and he agree about the first Succession between the two Fergusses And if Fordon did agree with all their Annals as is now pleaded Hector Boethius could not because they differ so much from each other as will appear to any one that compares them Why do we not reade in Fordon the Authorities of Veremundus and Cornelius Hibernicus who were certainly before his time if ever For we are told that he was Archdeacon of St. Andrew ' s. A. D. 1076. and dedicated his Book to Malcolm Canmore which was long enough before Fordon's time But it is said that he is cited in a particular part of Fordon 's Book which could not be copied from Boethius It had been a much clearer Evidence if that Place had been produced for then we might have consider'd whether it was a Passage of Fordon or of one of those several Writers who
which had more smattering of Learning than in the Ages before And so he begins his History very formally in imitation of the best Roman Authours with deducing their History from Gathelus and Scota deriving their Succession from the Greeks and Egyptians as the Romans did theirs from the Trojans This I do not attribute to his invention for it is at large in Fordon who quotes some old Chronicles and Legends for it especially the Legend of S. Brendan an admirable and authentick Record But to doe right to Hector in this matter he saith ingenuously that their People follow'd the custome of other Nations therein And as I have shew'd in the following Book at large where I treat of these Antiquities this humour had overspread all the Northern Nations as soon as they shook off the Roman Yoke and began not onely to be distinct Kingdoms but to have some affectation of the Roman Learning and to have Persons of their own Nation who began to write their Histories who thought they did nothing for the honour of their Countrey unless they could some way or other derive themselves from the Trojans or Greeks or Egyptians whom they met with so often in the Roman Authours and the Romans in most Provinces mixing together with the Northern People excited a greater Ambition in them either to be like the Romans or to exceed them in their pretended Antiquities And their inventions not being extraordinary there is very little variety in their several Accounts as will appear by comparing them in their proper Places In this point Hector Boethius hath acquitted himself well enough but finding the Succession of their Kings very short and meagre having no flesh to fill it nor nerves to support it nor colour to adorn it therefore he sets himself to make up what he found defective and to put it together under the Names of Veremundus and Cornelius Hibernius or others out of these he frames a long series or Catalogue of Kings which looked big and raised Mens expectations and seem'd well enough contrived to serve the pretence to so great Antiquity This being done he fills up the Story of these Kings not out of their old Annals as far as yet appears but in a great measure out of his own invention so as to mix the Commonwealth-Learning of the Greeks and Romans with the History of their ancient Kings Which hath done great prejudice to the Rights of the Monarchy for Hector's History took so much among the Nobility for very good Reasons to them that all that have written since him have depended upon his Authority as appears both by Buchanan and Lesly unless it were where he grosly contradicted the Roman History and there Buchanan leaves him but for the main of his History he relies upon him and Lesly doth nothing in effect but abridge him whatever he pretends as to Records and the Annals of the Monasteries of Pasly and Scoon which the Advocate supposeth he saw at Rome whither he saith they were carried If so it had been worth while to have procured well attested Copies from thence which had not been hard in all this time so many Gentlemen of that Nation travelling thither and seeing all the Curiosities of their Libraries But Lesly saith no such thing for he appeals to the publick Archives of the Kingdom and not to any MSS. at Rome so that if they were any where they were then in Scotland But the Advocate seems to have forgotten what he had said before viz. that the black Book of Scoon was among President Spotswood 's Books indeed he saith King Charles I. ransom'd it from Rome but how that appears I know not but I know the circumstances he mentions about Col. Fairfax c. relate not to the Book of Scoon but to a Copy of Fordon which was presented by him to King Charles II. And if Buchanan had the use of the Books of Pasley and the famous Book of Pluscarden as the Advocate believes upon Buchanan's word then in his time they were not carried to Rome For my part I do not question that there were MSS. Chronicles in Scotland before Fordon for I find him frequently citing them but by the things he quotes out of them they were not considerable nor done by any Authority as the Annals of the Royal Monasteries of this Kingdom his Continuer saith were and afterwards examined and compared I am sorry to find Sir R. Sibbald reckon up among the Books he had never seen having made it his business so many years to illustrate his Countrey not onely Cornelius Hibernicus and Veremundus but the Annals of Pasley and Scoon But however we are glad that the Advocate assures us he hath a very old Abridgment of the Book of Pasley and may this present heat against the Bishop of St. Asaph provoke them to procure and publish their ancient Annals such as they are which will be the greatest advantage to the World of this Contention about their Antiquities And I am so far from any Pique or Animosity in this matter that I should be glad to see those Antiquities which yet appear dark and confused clear'd up to the satisfaction of all learned and ingenuous Men. But I must beg pardon of his Majesty's Advocate if I take the freedom to say he hath not taken the right method to doe it For he ought first to have proved the matter in dispute by clear and indubitable Testimonies before he had made his severe Reflexions and Inferences but as Cicero said of the Musician who defined the Soul to be Harmony ab Arte sua non recessit so this ingenious Gentleman hath managed this whole debate in a way more agreeing to the Character of an Advocate than of an Antiquary For why so many insinuations as though some injury were intended to the Royal Line which I dare say the Bishop of St. Asaph doth really honour and esteem as much as his Majesty's Advocate himself For doth any Man of understanding think that it is any injury to the Royal Line of Britain to have the fabulous Antiquities of Geoffrey of Monmouth concerning the Succession of British Kings down from Brutus confuted And is not this done by Buchanan And the Advocate in plain English saith those tempt Men to lie who endeavour to derive themselves from the Trojans But why not as well from the Greeks and Egyptians But the Bishop of St. Asaph is so just to Truth and so little a Friend to popular Fables that he fairly gives up Geoffrey before he attacks Hector Boethius could any thing be more fairly and impartially done or more convincing that he onely designed to find out Truth in these matters without regard to that fondness some Men still have for these British Antiquities For there are and will be some and those not wholly unlearned who are naturally inclined to believe Fables and have so passionate a zeal for such things that they cry out upon all discoveries of this
from him To this the Irish Antiquaries reply that their ancient Annals do give a clear Account of this Fergus his Race and Time of going into Scotland but although they have the Succession of the Kings of Ireland long before and the remarkable things done in their time yet there is no mention at all of any Fergus or his Successours going to settle in Britain before this time They do believe that there were Excursions made by some of the Kings of Ireland before and I see no reason to question it even before the times mentioned by Gildas but they utterly deny any foundation of a Monarchy there by Scots going out of Ireland before the time of Fergus the Son of Eric and that 100 years later than the Scotish Antiquaries do place his coming for they make the first coming of this Colony to be A. D. 503. just the time which the Bishop of St. Asaph had pitched upon but according to their Antiquities Loarn the elder Brother was first King and he dying Fergus succeeded A. D. 513. and because his Race succeeded in that Kingdom therefore Fergus is supposed to have been founder of the Monarchy The Question now comes to this whether the Irish or the Scotish Antiquaries go upon the better Grounds For here the Advocate 's Common Places of Historical Faith Common Fame Domestick Tradition c. can determine nothing since these are equal on both sides and yet there is a contradiction to each other about a matter of Fact We must then appeal to the Records on both sides and those who can produce the more Authentick Testimonies from thence are to be believed The Advocate pleads that it is very credible that they had such because they had Druids and Sanachies and Monks as well as those in Ireland and that Columba founded a Monastery at Icolmkill and their Kings were buried there for a long time But where are the Annals of that Monastery Or of any other near that time To what purpose are we told of the Monasteries that were at Scoon and Paslay and Pluscardin and Lindesfern and Abercorn unless their Books be produced It is by no means satisfactory to say they had two Books their Register or Chartulary and their Black Book wherein their Annals were kept for we desire to see them of what colour soever they be and to be convinced by Testimonies out of them if they appear of sufficient authority But if these cannot be produced let them print the full Account of Irish Kings which the Advocate in his Advertisement saith he had lately seen in a very old MS. brought from Icolmkill written by Carbre Lifachair who lived six Generations before St. Patrick and so about our Saviour's time St. Patrick died about the end of the fifth Century being above 100 years old if the Irish Historians may be believed but how six Generations will reach from his birth to about our Saviour's time is not easie to understand For although the ancients differ'd much in computing Generations yet Censorinus saith they generally called 25 or 30 years by the Name of a Generation Herodotus indeed extends a Generation to 100 years yet even that will over doe here But who was this Carbre Lifachair who wrote so long since I find one of that Name among the Kings of Ireland about A. D. 284. and therefore I am apt to suspect that some body not very well versed in the Irish Language finding this Name among the Kings made him the Authour of the Book And the Irish Antiquaries speak with some indignation against those Scotish Writers who pretend to debate these matters of Antiquity relating to the Irish Nation without any skill in the Irish Language For this Debate doth not concern the Saxons in Scotland as all the Lowlanders are still called by the Highlanders and many of the best Families of their Nobility setled there in the time of Malcolm Canmoir after he had married the Sister to Edgar but it relating wholly to those who came out of Ireland the Irish Antiquaries think it reasonable it ought to be determined by the Irish Annals But will not the same objections lie against the Irish Antiquities which have been hitherto urged against the Scotish For why should we believe that the Original Irish were more punctual and exact in their Annals than those who went from thence into Scotland I answer that a difference is to be made concerning the Irish Antiquities For they either relate to what hapned among them before Christianity was received in Ireland or after As to their remote Antiquities they might have some general Traditions preserved among them as that they were peopled from Britain and Scythia and had Successions of Kings time out of mind but as to their exact Chronology I must beg leave as yet to suspend my Assent For Bollandus affirms that the Irish had no use of Letters till Saint Patrick brought it among them at which their present Antiquary is much offended and runs back to the Druids as the learned Advocate doth But neither of them have convinced me that the Druids ever wrote Annals All that Caesar saith is that in Gaul they made use of the Greek Letters which they might easily borrow from the Greek Colony at Marseilles but how doth it appear that they used these Letters in Ireland or Scotland Or that they any where used them in any matters of Learning which seems contrary to the Institution of the Druids who were all for Memory as Caesar saith and thought Books hurtfull to the use of it So that nothing could be more repugnant to their Discipline than the 150 Tracts of the Druids which St. Patrick is said to have cast into the Fire But I do not deny that they might have Genealogies kept up among them by their Druids and Sanachies and Bards who made it their business and so it was in Scotland as appears by the Highlanders repeating the Genealogy of Alexander III. by heart But the great Errour lay in fixing Times and Places and particular Actions according to the Names of those Genealogies And this was the true Reason of the mistake as to the Scotish Antiquities For the Genealogists carrying the Pedigree of Fergus the Son of Erk so much farther back some afterwards either imagined themselves or would have others think that all those mentioned before him were Kings in Scotland as Fergus was which by degrees was improved into a formal Story of forty Kings And I am very much confirmed in this conjecture because I find in the Genealogy in Fordon the descent of Fergus the Son of Erk from Conar the Irish Monarch as it is in the Irish Genealogies and that by Rieda called by them Carbre Riada by the other Eochoid Ried and several other Names are the very same we now find in the Genealogy of the Irish Kings as Eochoid Father to Erc Aengus Fedlim Conar the Son of Ederskeol and so up to Fergus
saying that Scotia had its Name from Scota the most noble Person in that Colony he saith it was in some Chronica but what Chronica was ever written by Grosthead deserves to be enquired For it is certain Fordon quotes him in other Places about Scota and the Scots Which makes me wonder that Dempster doth not put him among his Scotish Writers but as far as I can perceive he never read Fordon nor saw Elphinston In Chap. 20. where Fordon quotes an old Chronicle which affirms that Gaithelus gave the same Laws to his People which Phoroneus did to the Greeks and that the Scots to this day glory that they have those Laws this last Clause Elphinstoun left out and he passes over Chap. 21. where the miserable condition of the Posterity of Gathelus in Spain for 240 years is set down In some following Chapters he confutes Geoffrey of Monmouth in the very words of Fordon and uses his very expressions about the first peopling of Scotland from Ireland the coming of the Picts and the hard usage of the Scots by them and Fergus his going over out of Ireland in all which not one Authority is cited which is not in Fordon and not the least intimation of any such Authour as Veremundus In the second Book he follows Fordon not onely in other things before but when he describes the Islands of Scotland and particularly Jona onely he leaves out Fordon's Hebrew Etymology making Iona and Columba the same and he saith not one word of any Library or Records kept there or any old Histories and Annals to be there found as Hector Boethius affirms all that he saith is that there was a Sanctuary for Transgressours About Fergus and Rether he varies not a tittle from Fordon and never mentions any other Kings of that Race which he would never have omitted if he had known such an Authour as Veremundus And he doth not suppose that Rether succeeded Fergus in the Kingdom of Scotland but that he came afresh from Ireland and so makes this the second coming of the Scots out of Ireland Which plainly overthrows the constant Succession of the Monarchy from Fergus in Scotland And he names no one King of Scotland from Rether to Eugenius who was banished with all the Scots In the beginning of the third Book he gives an account after Fordon of Fergus the Son of Erk coming into Scotland and he reckons 45 Kings between the two Fergusses just as Fordon doth and he desires to be excused as he did for not setting down distinctly the times of their several Reigns because he could not then find any Writings about them his words are ad praesens non in Scriptis reperimus Now from this expression I thus argue against Hector Boethius his Veremundus He saith that Elphinstoun gave the first intimation of him and that followed him in his History either therefore Veremundus gave no account of this first Succession which Hector pretends to have from him and so his Authority signifies nothing at all in this matter or Elphinston never saw him for he saith he never could find any History of this first Succession And therefore if ever there were such a Book under the Name of Veremundus it was after Elphinston's days For having searched the whole Nation for ancient Writings and particularly Jona as Hector testifies and finding no History of the Succession from Fergus as himself declares it is a plain Evidence that Hector Boethius hath given a false account of Elphinston in relation to Veremundus and in all probability of Veremundus too But this is not all for Elphinston doth not onely say that he could not find any Books relating to the Succession of the Kings from Fergus but he refers his Readers to the old Irish Annals his Words are ad antiquos Hiberniae Libros referimus So that according to Elphinston's judgment the most certain account of their Antiquities is to be taken from the Irish Authours And so we may observe both in him and Fordon the Irish Legends of S. Brendan and others served them for very good Authorities And so much for the Advocate 's ancient Historian Veremundus the Spaniard For I suppose the mention of him by Bale Gesner Hollinshed c. after he was so much celebrated by Hector Boethius deserves no farther consideration But Vossius did not think him worth mentioning and although he blames Luddus as the Advocate calls him or Humphry Lhuyd for being too severe upon Hector Boethius yet it is evident that he looked on him as a fabulous Writer and so durst not set him down on his authority The Advocate would excuse this Censure of Vossius as though it related onely to his credulity in point of miracles whereas there is not the least intimation that way and Vossius saith that Leland on the account of his fabulousness wrote sharp Verses upon him What! for his having believed too many Miracles No certainly but for his fabulous Antiquities But he hopes to bring Hector Boethius better off from the Censure of Bishop Gavin Dowglas which the Bishop of St. Asaph takes notice of from Polydore Virgil because Bishop Dowglas died A. D. 1520. and Boethius his History was not published till 1526. and he had not his Records from Icolmkill till 1525. To which I answer that this looks like one of the Miracles the Advocate confesses that Hector did too easily report For if he had the Records on which this History was built but in 1525. how came his History to be published the following year For he makes use of Veremundus his Authority in the very beginning of his History for the Scotish Antiquities both in Spain Ireland and Albany In his second Book he saith whatever he had written of the ancient Kings of Scotland he had taken out of Veremundus Campbell and Cornelius Hibernicus all which he pretended to have had from Icolmkill In his third Book about Caesar's Expedition he still pretends to follow Veremundus And in his seventh Book he declares he had kept close to him in the whole series of his History Now how was this possible if he had never seen Veremundus till A. D. 1525. and his History was published by Badius Ascensius at Paris A. D. 1526. It would take up that year in sending it thither and revising and correcting and publishing so large a Volume as his History makes So that there must be some great mistake as to the year of his receiving those Records if he ever did But if this were not the History Bishop Dowglas censured what other was there at that time which could deserve it It could not be Joh. Major for his Book was printed by Badius Ascensius after Dowglas his death if he died as he saith A. D. 1520. and he pretends to no new Discoveries as Boethius doth But why should the Advocate imagine his History was not known by the learned Men at home such as Bishop Dowglas was before it was
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
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
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
Glassenbury I do not question that King Ina did found a Monastery there where before had been an ancient Church in the British times But I see no ground to believe that either Joseph of Arimathea or St. Patrick or St. David had ever been there But these were great and well sounding Names to amuse the People with and by degrees advanced that Monastery to so high a Reputation that the very Monks of other places were concerned to lessen the authority of this Tradition as is evident by the MS. Chronicle of St. Augustine's wherein the Monks of Glassenbury are charged with pretending to greater authority than they had reason for that Monastery being first founded by King Ina but they give out they had Land given by Arviragus a King of the Britains And even William of Malmsbury although when he writes the Antiquities of Glassenbury he seems firmly to believe Saint Patrick's being there yet when he comes elsewhere to speak of his being buried there he adds that cooling Expression Si credere dignum and takes not the least notice of Joseph of Arimathea and his Companions So much difference he thought there ought to be between writing the Legend of a Monastery and a true History And there he plainly affirms that King Ina was the first Founder of it To which Asserius agrees in an ancient MS. Copy of his Annals For A. D. 726. he saith Ina went to Rome and there died having built and dedicated a Monastery in Glassenbury But what Presumption was it to say He dedicated it if it were dedicated so long before by Christ himself as the Vision of St. David and the Glassenbury Tradition affirm I do not then deny that there was an ancient Church before Ina's time which after the Western Saxons became Christians grew into mighty Reputation but all the Succession of Abbats before either of Worgresius or Brightwaldus or others I look on as fabulous For Bede and others say Brightwaldus was Abbat of Reculver before he was Archbishop which is a good distance from Glassenbury But the first Abbat there was Hemgislus to whom Ina granted a Charter after him Beorwaldus to whom King Ina granted several Lands by Charters far more probable than this large one whose authority I have hitherto discussed Those Charters are short and the Style agreeable to those times and not one Word of Joseph of Arimathea or St. Patrick or St. David in any of them And those I believe were the original Charters of that Abbey But the Abbey being thus founded and well endowed then like a man that hath made his own Fortunes who pretends to be derived from some ancient Stock so this Monastery growing rich betimes saw it must be cast much behind in Place and Dignity unless it could lay claim to some greater Antiquity And for this the old British Church was an admirable Foundation And St. Patrick and St. David being two Saints of wonderfull esteem in Ireland and Wales they first set up with the Reputation of their being at Glassenbury the former lying buried there and the latter building a little Chapel The Monks finding the advantage of these Pretences made a farther step towards the advancement of their Monastery by giving out that their old Church was the first Church in Britain and that all Religion came from thence into other parts which by degrees gaining belief they at last pitched upon Joseph of Arimathea as the person who came first hither being a Man whose Name was every where in great esteem for the respect he shew'd to our Saviour's Body And him they thought they might safely pitch upon not being pretended to by any other Church But it was a considerable time before the Name of Joseph of Arimathea came to be mention'd not being found in any of the Saxon Charters which speak most to the advantage of Glassenbury as may be seen by those of King Edmond and King Edgar in the Monasticon But by the time of Henry II. the Tradition was generally received that the old Church at Glassenbury was built by the Disciples of our Lord and that it was the original Church of this Nation as appears by the Charter of Henry II. omitted in the Monasticon but printed by Harpsfield and the learned Primate of Armagh by which we see what Authority the Monks of Glassenbury had then obtained for not onely this Tradition is inserted in the Charter as a thing certain but a Repetition is there made of several other Charters as seen and read before the King which were undoubtedly counterfeit such as that of King Arthur and several others yet all these went down then and were confirmed by the King 's Inspeximus From this time the Monks of Glassenbury were triumphant and no one durst dispute their Traditions how improbable soever This Charter being confirmed by the Inspeximus of Edw. II. An. 6 7. of Edw. III. An. 1 6. and 1 Edw. IV. And from hence it grew to be the common opinion of the Nation and was pleaded for the honour of it in the Councils of Pisa Constance Siena and Basil of which the Primate hath given a full account and as things passed among them then Our Nation had as just Right to insist on their Tradition of Joseph of Arimathea as the Spaniards on that of St. James going into Spain for certainly one Tradition was as good as the other But having thus far examined the Authority of this Tradition I now come to consider the Circumstances of it And supposing the Testimonies to confirm it to have been of far greater Authority than I find them yet the very improbable Circumstances of the Story it self would be a sufficient reason for me to pass it over leaving every one to believe as much of it as he sees cause viz. 1. The Tradition of the Church mentioned by Eusebius Sophronius S. Chrysostome and Hippolytus Portuensis That Saint Philip continued Preaching in the Eastern parts about Phrygia and suffer'd at Hierapolis 2 The Eremitical course of their Lives so wholly different from that of the Apostles and other Disciples of our Lord in an Age of so much business and employment in Preaching the Gospel who went from one City and Countrey to another for that End 3. The building of the Church by a Vision of the Archangel and devoting it and themselves to the Blessed Virgin favours too grosly of Monkish Superstition to be near the time pretended 4. The Consecrating a Church-yard together with a Church in order to the burial of persons in it at that time is none of the most probable Circumstances and yet it is a material one Quod ipse Dominus Ecclesiam simul cum Coemeterio dedicarat Sir H. Spelman observes That the custome of compassing Churches with Church-yards was not so ancient And withall he adds That although the British Cities had Churches from the beginning of Christianity yet there were no burying places within Cities