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
hence Vnless therefore the Advocate be pleased to shew that the Name of Scots doth so belong to the Irish upon their remove into Britain that it could not agree to them in Ireland it will be impossible for him to make out that the Name of Scots doth originally belong to the Irish in Britain and onely by way of communication to those in Ireland I have already shewed that Jos. Scaliger doth assign such a Reason of the Name of Scoti as agrees onely to those who came over upon Expeditions but I believe the Scots will take it far better to receive their Name from the Irish Scots than to have had the original Name given them on such an Account 2. As to the Circumstances of Palladius his Mission the main difficulty objected is from St. Patrick's being sent so soon after into Ireland which needed not have been if Palladius were sent before thither and not rather into Scotland whither Bale saith he went and died not A. D. 431. but 434. This is the force of what the Advocate saith upon this matter But the Bishop of St. Asaph had proved from Prosper that Palladius was sent to the Scots in Ireland because he distinguishes the two Islands the one he calls Roman i. e. Britain the other barbarous where the Scots lived to whom Palladius was sent which could be no other than Ireland To which the Advocate answers that the Northern part of Britain was by Tacitus and Bede said to be reduced into an Island by the Roman Wall from Sea to Sea and Bede in other places calls the Scots Islanders Tacitus indeed saith that by Agricola's Fortifications between the two Friths the Britains were driven as into another Island but this is a very different way of speaking from that of Prosper who makes a distinction between two proper Islands And Prosper could not be ignorant that Festus Avienus not long before viz. in the time of Theodosius had distinguished the two Islands the one inhabited by the Hiberni and the other he calls Insula Albionum which takes in all that we now call Britain But according to the old Geographers Ireland was accounted one of the British Islands as appears by the Testimonies of Pliny Apuleius Ptolemy Diodorus Siculus and Marcianus Heracleota which have been produced by others and need not to be repeated here But no one ever mentioned Scotland as a distinct Island and therefore it is unreasonable to understand Prosper in that Sense Bede mentions the Insulani in the Chapter refer'd to but nothing can be plainer than that he speaks of the Britains on this side the Wall who raised up the Wall of Turf between the two Friths for their own security against their Enemies beyond the Wall In the other place of Bede the Insulani are to be understood of those of Ireland as Bede clearly expresseth himself misso in Hiberniam exercitu But the ingenious Advocate hath a fetch beyond this for he saith that Bede by Ireland meant Scotland which he sets himself to prove from this very passage For saith he the same thing that is first said to be done in Hibernia is afterwards said to be done in Scotia And might it not be so if Ireland were then called Scotia as appears by the former Testimonies But that Bede could not mean any other than Ireland appears from hence that he saith the Nation which Egfred invaded had been always kind to the English and the Irish Annals give an account of the very Place and Time of Egfred's landing in Ireland and the Captives he carried away from thence But Bede elsewhere saith the Scots in Britain had been great Enemies to them as appeared by the Battel at Degsastan where the whole Army of the Scots was almost cut off by Edilfredus King of Northumberland and their King Edan fled from which time none of the Kings of Scotland durst appear in the Field against the English Which argues no great kindness between them but Bede saith that these had been Nationi Anglorum gens super amicissima and therefore his Words must relate to the Scots in Ireland But doth not Bede say that Columbanus came from Ireland to Hy and so to Britain and afterwards that Colman returned to Scotland i. e. to Hy from whence Columba came therefore Scotland was called Ireland or rather Ireland was called Scotia which is so clear in Bede that I wonder that any that carefully reade him can dispute it He saith indeed that the Scots had a Kingdom in Britain but where he speaks of the Religion of the Scots he then means the Scots of Ireland as will easily appear by the series of his Discourse When he speaks of Laurentius his care not onely of the Britains but of the Scots too he explains himself to mean those who lived in Ireland an Island near to Britain Columba he saith came from Ireland to convert the Northern Picts and obtained from their King the Island Hy where he founded his Monastery which he saith was the chief of all the Northern Scots not of those in Scotland but in Ireland For in the same Chapter he distinguished the Scots in the Southern parts of Ireland from those in the Northern the former following the Roman Custome of Easter and the Northern refusing it From these Aidanus came the first Scotish Bishop who setled among the English being sent for by King Oswald Furseus saith he afterwards came from Ireland being of the most noble Race of the Scots and there he mentions the Scots of his own Nation and saith he had preached a great while in Scotia before he came into England but he never takes notice after his coming over of his being any where but among the Britains before he went to the East Angles After Aidan's death Finan came from the same Scots who persisted in the old way of the keeping Easter after Finan Colman succeeded who was missus a Scotia who maintained the same practice and afterwards he returned home in Scotiam regressus est but what he means by it Bede presently informs us when he saith that Tuda succeeded who had been brought up among the Southern Scots i. e. in the Southern parts of Ireland Tuda died of the Plague which Bede saith passed into Ireland whither many English went in the time of Finan and Colman who were all kindly received by the Scots When Colman returned Bede saith he went first to Hy then to an Island on the West of Ireland but not a word of the Northern parts of Britain Afterwards he sheweth how the greatest part of the Scots in Ireland were brought to compliance in the point of keeping Easter by means of Adamnanus who endeavoured to reduce those of Hy but could not but upon Egbert's coming to them from Ireland the Scotish Monks of the Island Hy or Jona yielded when Duumchadus was Abbat there And now let any indifferent Reader
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
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
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
this time by the Authours he quotes such as the Poly-chronicon of Ranalphus Higden the Polycraticon of Roger of Chester who both lived in the fourteenth Century And Maculloch who transcribed and inlarged it lived saith Dempster Anno Dom. 1482. For it appears by the Preface Debitor sum fateor c. That John Fordon who is there called a Presbyter and no Monk finished no more than five Books of the Scoti-chronicon But left the Materials to make up the rest And that Fordon's own Work was but lately done before Maculloch undertook to finish and inlarge it who professes himself a Disciple of Fordon 's And distinguishes his own Additions from Fordon's Copy by putting in the Margin Scriptor Autor But Dempster makes Maculloch Scoti-chronicon and Fordon three several Authours which is a Sign he never saw them Mr. Camden takes notice how much the later Scotish Historians are beholding to Fordon 's diligence And therefore out of him I shall give a short Account of the Scotish Antiquities And then shew how far Major Hector Boethius and Buchanan differ from him For Lesly doth very faithfully contract Hector where Buchanan was ashamed to follow him as will appear by what follows There was saith Fordon One Gaithelos Son of Neolus one of the Kings of Greece who having displeased his Father was banished his Countrey and went into Egypt where he was married to Scota the King's Daughter But he quotes another Chronicle which saith that he was sent to the assistence of the King of Egypt against the Ethiopians Who gave him his onely Daughter Scota to Wife And the Legend of St. Brendan to the same purpose And another Chronicle which makes him to be Grandchild to Nimrod who was driven into Egypt and there married this Scota However they differ in lesser Circumstances they agree in the main Point For Scota he must have or else the Name of Scotia would be quite lost After the destruction of Pharaoh in the Red Sea Gaithelos is chosen King But Discontents arising he and his Wife Scota with their Company put to Sea and made Westward But after many Difficulties they landed in Spain where after the Conquest of the Inhabitants he built the City Brigantia But being wearied out with continual Wars he sent some of his Company to Sea to find out an Island without Inhabitants upon discovery whereof they returned to Gaithelos Who soon after died and charged his Children and Friends to go thither And accordingly his Sons Iber and Imec went to take Possession of this Island which from him was called Ibernia and from his Mother Scotia Which Name was after given to part of Britain Because the Inhabitants of the other Island settled there saith Maculloch in his Additions to Fordon as appears by the affinity of their Language and Customs which saith he continues to this day In Spain some of that Race abode saith Fordon out of an old Chronicle 240 years Then arose a King whom he calls Micelius who had three Sons Hermonius Partholomus and Hibertus whom he sent into Ireland with a great Army The eldest returned to Spain But the other two continued there Afterwards Simon Brek with his Company made a third descent into Ireland who sprang from Hermonius and carried along with him the Marble Chair in which their Kings were wont to sit and which Gathelus brought out of Egypt as some think but others say Simon drew it up from the bottom of the Sea with an Anchor in a great Tempest and therefore was preserved as a precious Relict And he took it as a Presage of his Kingdom which was to continue wherever that Stone was as the Southsayers said From Ireland Ethachius Rothay a Descendent from Simon Brek took possession of the Island Rothsay And many Scots associated with the Picts in the Northern parts of Britain But being hardly used and having no Head Fergus the Son of Fercard or Ferard being descended of the Royal Family went over and took upon him the Government of them Which he saith was before Christ 330 years in the time of Alexander the Great who carried the Fatal Chair into Scotland and was crowned in it Some time after him succeeded Rether whom Bede calls Reuda who endeavour'd to inlarge the Borders of the Scots in those Parts and fixed himself in that which from him was called Retherdale but since Rydisdale And this he makes the Second coming of the Scots out of Ireland After this he tells how the Kings of the Britains of the Scots and the Picts lived very lovingly together till Julius Caesar disturbed them all who he saith went to the very Borders of Scotland And there sent Letters to the Kings both of the Scots and Picts who both returned Answers in Latin although but the Chapter before he saith The very Britains had never heard of the Name of the Romans But it happen'd That Caesar hearing of the Revolt of the Gauls made a speedy return out of those Parts Then he relates the bloudy Wars of the Scots and Picts against the Britains and how Fulgentius Head of the Britains joined with the Picts and Scots against Severus and killed him at York And so proceeds in the Story of Carausius and Maximus and their Wars with the Scots and Picts till he comes to Fergus II. With whom he begins his Third Book And between the two Fergusses he reckons Forty five Kings But he confesses he cannot distinguish the times of their Reign as he can do those from Fergus II. And he gives this considerable Reason for it Nam ad plenum Scripta non reperimus i. e. He could not find any full Account of them in any ancient Annals or Records And therefore it ought to be considered from whence Hector Buchanan and Lesly should be able to give such a particular Account of the Reigns of those Kings which were wholly unknown to Fordon This is the short Account of what Fordon delivers about these Remoter Antiquities of the Scots Joh. Major confesseth That the Scots were derived from the Irish which he saith is plain by the Language For in his time half the Nation spake Irish and before that time more And so he tells the Story of their coming from Spain of the City Braganza of Iberus and his Mother Scota and then repeats the Tradition of Gathelus as Fordon relates it But very honestly saith That he looks on that part of it about coming out of Greece and Egypt as a Fiction And very probably conjectures it was done because the Britains derived themselves from the Trojans Which was subtily done of the Scots to claim Kindred rather with the Conquering Greeks than the subdued and banished Trojans All that Major asserts is That the Irish came out of Spain and the Scots out of Ireland And the Story of Simon Brek he rejects as a Fable And he makes the