shew of Authority that Palladius was sent to those which were already Christians and therefore Christianity must be planted among the Scots before the Mission of Palladius and for this he quotes Beda Ado Viennensis Hermannus Contractus Marianus Scotus and others and he blames Platina and Ciacconius who make him the Instrument of their Conversion wherein he confesseth they follow Fabius Ethelwerd and Ingulphus but he takes no notice that Prosper himself in his Chronicon affirms the same thing and the others have it from him So that Prosper makes the Scots to be converted by Palladius and to have been Christians before his time which are inconsistent But Nennius seems to have hit upon the true account of this matter viz. That Palladius was sent by Celestine to convert the Scots but finding no great success therein he was driven on the Coasts of Britain and there died And after his death St. Patrick was sent on the same Errand And if the Writers of his Life may be believed Palladius did very little towards the Conversion of the Scots And therefore what Prosper saith of Celestine's making a barbarous Nation Christian must be understood of his Design and good Intention and not of the Event which came not to pass till some time after and chiefly by the means of St. Patrick who went after the death of Palladius Unless we understand the Words of Prosper of those who were made Christians at the time of his Writing the Design whereof being laid by Palladius is therefore attributed to him when he wrote against Cassian sometime after the death of Celestine But when he wrote his Chronicon in the time of Leo The Scots being then converted he saith That Palladius was appointed to be Bishop over the believing Scots Not that they did then believe before Palladius his coming but that they did now believe when he wrote his Chronicon For all the Testimonies of such as Preached there before Palladius are of very little Credit But nothing of all this relates to the Scots in Britain but to the original Scots in Ireland who were uncapable of a National Conversion in Britain so long before they came to settle in it as will appear afterwards So that if there were any Conversion of Scots before the Mission of Palladius it cannot at all respect this Place of Tertullian who speaks onely of the Britains and not of the Scots And Dio knew of none but Britains that lived Northward in that Expedition of Severus although he saith he went to the utmost extent of the Island and at last concluded a Peace with the Britains upon their quitting no small part of their Countrey although they soon revolted So that here was a great number of Britains to be converted in those Places where the Romans never had been before Severus his last Expedition Which the Scotish Historians apply to the Conversion of their Nation who were not yet come into Britain But allowing that there were Churches planted among the Northern Britains this doth not overthrow the continuance and propagation of the Christian Church among the Provincial Britains For now for a long time the Christian Religion had a great Liberty of propagating it self For from the time of Hadrian to Severus the Christians were generally free from Persecution excepting what the Rage of the People brought upon them in some Places without any Edict of the Emperours as in the time of the Antonini both at Rome in Gaul and some parts of the East But these Persecutions were neither general nor continued so long as when the Emperours published Edicts on purpose and therefore the Persecutions under Trajan and the Antonini ought in reason to be distinguished from those under Nero and Domitian Decius and Dioclesian when the Emperours made it their business to root out Christianity But in the former Case the Emperours restrain'd the People by their Edicts but the People in some Places by false Suggestions frustrated the design of those Edicts which Places excepted the Christians enjoy'd a long time of Liberty In which they neglected no opportunities to promote their Religion And within this time the Christian Writers say There was no Nation almost then known where Christianity was not planted So Justin Martyr tells Trypho so Eusebius and Ruffinus speak and Lactantius saith That Christianity spread it self into the East and West so that there was scarce any Corner of the Earth so remote whither it had not pierced no Nation so barbarous that was not reduced by it As to Britain Gildas affirms the continuance of a Church here from the first Plantation of the Gospel though not maintain'd with equal Zeal to the Persecution of Dioclesian and even that was so far from destroying it that it gained strength and reputation by the Courage of Confessours and Martyrs and the heat of it was no sooner over but as Bede and Gildas both say the Christian Church flourished again in great Peace and Vnity till the Arian Heresie gave it disturbance 2. It is objected That Sulpicius Severus speaking of the Persecution of Christians in Gaul in the time of M. Aurelius Antoninus saith That Martyrdoms were then first seen in Gaul the Christian Religion being more lately received beyond the Alpes Which seems to overthrow the Antiquity of the Britannick as well as the Gallick Churches But in my opinion after so many Discourses written in a neighbour Nation about this Passage we are to distinguish that which Sulpicius Severus absolutely affirms viz. That there were no Martyrdoms in Gaul before that time From that which he supposes to have been the reason of it viz. That the Christian Religion was more lately received on this side the Alpes The other he was certain of there being no authentick Relation of any Martyrdoms there before but that which he assigns as the reason of it hath no such certainty in it For the Christian Churches might have been planted there before and have escaped that Persecution which befell the Churches of Lyons and Vienna in the time of M. Aurelius He might as well have argued that Christianity was not here received till a little before the Persecution of Dioclesian because we reade of no Martyrdoms before those of St. Alban Julius and Aaron at that time But if there were no Edict for Persecution of Christians for above an hundred years together viz. from the Persecution of Domitian Anno Dom. 92. to the Edict of Severus Anno Dom. 204. then it was very possible that there might be Christian Churches in Gaul and yet no Martyrdoms till the Persecution under M. Aurelius by a popular Tumult which as Eusebius tells us was the seventeenth year of his Reign Baronius thinks that M. Aurelius sent private Edicts against the Christians But Tertullian saith none of their good Emperours ever persecuted the Christians and instanceth in Trajan Hadrian Pius Verus and M. Aurelius Eusebius saith That Trajan abated the fierceness of
considered it is more probable that the Saxons before that time were come nearer to the Rhine and so had greater Conveniency of removing themselves over in such great Numbers into Britain as they did upon Vortigern's Invitation and the Discontents which soon happen'd between the Saxons and the Britains And it is observable That those who inlarge the Bounds of the Saxons do take notice of a difference in their Situation agreeable to what Bede saith For Reinerus Reineccius a Learned German Antiquary saith The Saxons were divided into three sorts the Ostvali or the Eastern Saxons whom the Old Saxon Poet calls Osterlingi whose Limits extended he saith as far as the Slavi i. e. beyond the River Elb the Westvali whose Bounds he saith came very near the Rhine And between these he saith were the Angarii just as Bede puts his Angli between the Jutes and the Saxons Inter praedictos media Regione morantur Angarii Populus Saxonum tertius If this Division of the Saxons be allow'd we have here scope enough for all those People to live in who came over into Britain and number enough to come hither and yet not to leave the Places desolate whence they came And it is not improbable that the Northern Nations thrusting one another forwards for a greater Conveniency of living those Saxons who lived about Holstein might come into Westphaliae and so be nearest to the Rhine The Angli came into the Place where the Angrivarii are seated And the most remote Inhabitants of the Chersonese would then be the Osterlings or the Eastern Saxons This upon the whole matter seems to me the most probable way of reconciling what Bede saith with the Circumstances of those times and with the Frisians coming in together with the Saxons which he elsewhere expresly affirms as is already shew'd As to the time of the Saxons coming into Britain in the common printed Copies of Bede it is said to have been Anno Dom. 409. and so it is in the late Edition by Chiffletius out of the old MS. of S. Maximin at Triers But that cannot be true because Martianus is said to be Emperour at the same time But in the Chronology at the end of that Edition it is said to have been Anno Dom. 449. to which Mr. Wheelock's MS. agrees and Asserius Menevensis in his Annals which is follow'd by Fabius Ethelwerd the Old Saxon Annals William of Malmsbury Henry Huntingdon Matth. Westminster and others Florentius Wigorniensis who generally follows Marianus Scotus places it in the following year Valentinianus and Avienus Consuls but according to Marianus Scotus in the Basil Edition they were Consuls the year before Martianus was Emperour and he makes their coming in to have been when Herculanus and Asporatius were Consuls Anno Dom. 453. But Archbishop Vsher saith That appears by the Fasti to have been Anno Dom. 452. or the second of Martianus by Cassiodore Two Characters of the time are certain viz. that it was after the third Consulship of Aêtius and the Death of Theodosius And therefore it is to be wondred Mr. Camden should so confidently affirm that it was before Anno Dom. 449. But there are three things he goes upon which must be consider'd First That Vortigern 's Death was before St. German 's return But St. German died Anno Dom. 435. And therefore the coming in of the Saxons must be some time before As to Vortigern's Death before St. German's return he produces onely the Testimony of Nennius who in the Affairs of Vortigern doth Romance so much That even Geffrey of Monmouth was ashamed to follow him But as to the time of St. German's Death there are very convincing Arguments to prove Camden mistaken Honoratus in the Life of Hilary Bishop of Arles mentions St. German as present when Chelidonius was deposed by Hilary in his Visitation which Sirmondus placeth not without Reason Anno Dom. 444. as appears by the Epistle of Leo and the Rescript of Valentinian upon Chelidonius his Appeal which bears date Anno Dom. 445. But which is yet more considerable Bede saith That after his second return he went on an Embassy to Ravenna and was there kindly received by Valentinian and Placidia and there died And not long after Valentinian was killed in the sixth of Martianus And therefore St. German's Death could not be so soon as Mr. Camden supposeth Add to this that Constantius in his Life of St. German saith That he sate thirty years after St. Amator in his See who died Anno Dom. 418. But the Sammarthani say Anno Dom. 420. As to the Testimony of Prosper Tiro who saith That Britain was brought under the Power of the Saxons the 18 th of Theodosius it plainly contradicts Gildas For this was before the third Consulship of Aêtius which was five years after And in matters of the British History Gildas certainly deserves the greater Credit supposing it were the true Prosper His last Argument is from the Calculation at the end of Nennius on which he lays the greatest Weight which makes their coming in to be when Felix and Taurus were Consuls which agrees with Anno Dom. 428. But this was near twenty years before the third Consulship of Aêtius when the Britains were not yet in despair of Assistence from the Romans Before which they never sought for the Saxons And I confess the Authority of Gildas and Bede with the Series of the British and Roman Affairs at that time sway much more with me than such an Anonymous Calculation It is a strange mistake of Hadrianus Valesius to make Vortigern King of the Angles who were hired to assist the Britains But the Ambiguity of the words in Paulus Diaconus seem to have been the occasion of it which had been easily prevented by looking into Bede And so had another Mistake in the same place viz. That onely the Angles and not the Saxons were invited over For Bede saith expresly That the Britains with their King Vortigern agreed to send for the Saxons But it is a third mistake when he saith That the Saxons before this time had a part of the Island near to the Picts Which he proves from the Words of Constantius as to their joining with the Picts in one of their Battels But the Saxons did frequently make Incursions before and in one of them might join with the other Enemies of the Britains which is a very different thing from Inhabiting in any Part of the Island which we have no Evidence that they did till they were called in by the Britains The Saxons having received such an Invitation from the Britains were unwilling to let slip so fair an Opportunity of coming into that Land by the consent of Prince and People whose Shores they had so long infested Bede saith There was a particular Providence of God in it to make them the Scourges of the Peoples wickedness Gildas imputes it to mere Sottishness and Infatuation Nennius intimates
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.
the Persecution but left the Laws in force upon information That Hadrian in his Rescript to Minutius Fundanus Proconsul of Asia forbad a general Persecution of any as Christians That Antoninus Pius not onely pursued the same method but threatned severe punishment to all Informers the same he saith of M. Aurelius In Commodus his time he saith the Christian Churches flourished very much in all parts So that till Severus his Edict there was no Persecution by virtue of any Edict of the Emperours by the account which Eusebius gives And Lactantius hardly allows any Persecution at all from Domitian to Decius Not but that the Christians suffered very much in some Places through the Rage of the People and the Violence of some Governours of Provinces But there was no general Persecution countenanced by the Emperours Edicts and therefore where the People were quiet or intent upon other things there might be Christian Churches where there were no such Martyrdoms as those of Lyons and Vienna It is certain that Irenaeus mentions the consent of the Celtick Churches and those of Germany and the Iberi with the Eastern and Libyan Churches All the Question is Whether this ought to be restrained to the Churches planted among the Celtae as they were one Division of the Gauls in Caesar's time or whether he took the Word in the larger sense as comprehending all the Gauls This latter seems much more probable because Irenaeus in none of the others mention'd by him takes any particular Division of the People but the general Name as of the Germans and Iberi and why not then the Celtae in as large a sense Since Strabo Plutarch Appian and others call the Gauls in general by the name of Celtae and Tertullian manifestly rejects that sense of Celtae for one Division of the Gauls when he mentions the several Nations of the Gauls which had embraced Christianity But I will not insist as Petrus de Marca doth That Tertullian by the Galliarum diversae Nationes means the four Provinces of Gaul into which Augustus did distribute it But I say that there is no reason to limit the sense of Tertullian to one Division of the Gauls supposing the different Nations do comprehend those of Gallia Cisalpina and Transalpina although I see no ground to understand Tertullian so since the name of Gallia Cisalpina was much difused especially after the new distribution of the Empire by Hadrian So that from the Testimonies of Irenaeus and Tertullian we see no reason to question the greater Antiquity of the Celtick Churches than Sulpicius Severus intimates much less to overthrow the Antiquity of the Britannick Churches For besides this Testimony of Tertullian concerning the British Churches We have another of Origen not long after who saith When did Britain before the coming of Christ consent in the Worship of one God Which implies that the Britains were then known to be Christians and by being so were brought off from the former Idolatry And unless so learned a Man as Origen had been fully satisfied of the truth of this having choice enough of other Instances he would not have run as far as Britain to bring an Argument to prove that all the Earth doth praise the Lord Which he saith is fulfilled in the Christian Churches dispersed over the World But I wonder what should make two such learned Antiquaries as Mr. Camden and Bishop Godwin so far to mistake the sense of Origen to understand him as if he had said That Britain by the help of the Druids always consented in the belief of one God whereas it is very plain That Origen speaks of it as a great alteration that was made in the Religion of the Britains after the coming of Christ. And Origen doth not onely speak of the belief but of the Worship of one God which it is certain from Caesar That the Druids did never instruct the People in But the Christian Religion alter'd the whole Scheme of the Druids Worship and instead of their Taranis and Hesus and Teutates and Belenus and Andate it taught them to believe and worship one true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent to be the Saviour of the World Whose Power Origen saith elsewhere was seen in Britain as well as Mauritania Thus far I have endeavoured to clear the Apostolical Succession of the British Churches which those have rendred more doubtfull who have derived our Christianity from King Lucius his Message to Pope Eleutherius and the Persons he sent over to convert him and the whole Nation as the Tradition goes to the Christian Faith But there is a considerable difference to be observed about this Tradition not merely about the time of the Conversion of this King Lucius of which Archbishop Vsher hath given so full an account that to his diligence therein nothing material can be added but concerning the means and manner of his Conversion and the Persons employ'd in it For Petrus Equilinus saith That he was baptized by Timothy a Disciple of St. Paul and he had it from a much better Authour for Notkerus Balbulus saith That King Lucius was baptized by Timothy not the Timothy to whom Saint Paul wrote his Epistles But the Brother of Novatus whose Names are extant in the old Martyrology published by Rosweyd 12 Cal. Julii who were both saith Baronius Sons to Pudens a Roman Senatour the same who is supposed to have been marryed to Claudia Rufina the Britain and therefore his Son might not improbably be employ'd in this work of converting a British King Nauclerus takes notice That this Relation agrees best with the Tradition of the Church of Curia a noted City of Rhaetia And Pantaleon calls Lucius the Disciple of Timothy out of the Annals of that Church From whence Marcus Velserus shews that he did not die here in Britain but went over into those parts of Rhaetia to preach the Gospel and there suffer'd Martyrdom or at least ended his days For they are not agreed about the manner of his death Aegidius Tschudus saith the former who adds that there is a place near Curia called Clivus S. Lucii still and Munster saith near the Episcopal Palace there is Monasterium Sancti Lucii And Ferrarius in his new Topography to the Martyrologium Romanum reckons King Lucius of Britain one of the Martyrs of Curia which the Germans call Chur and the Italians Choira And the Roman Martyrology saith That there his memory is still observed Notkerus Balbulus saith That he converted all Rhaetia and part of Bavaria If so they had great reason to preserve his Memory and the British Church on the account of King Lucius his converting their Countrey hath as much right to challenge Superiority over Bavaria and Rhaetia as the Church of Rome hath over the British Church on the account of the Conversion of Lucius by Eleutherius If this Tradition
hold good the other cannot which differs as to time Persons and the remainder of his Life which our Writers say was spent here And Geffrey from the British History saith That he died at Gloucester and left no Heir to succeed him Wherein he is follow'd by John Fordon who saith That after the death or disappearance of King Lucius the Royal Stock failed and then the Romans appointed Governours instead of Kings But by that Expression Vel non comparente Fordon seems to doubt whether he did not withdraw in his old Age according to the German Tradition Nennius saith That Anno Domini 164. Lucius King of Britain with all the inferiour Kings of Britain were baptized upon an Embassy sent by the Roman Emperours and Pope Evaristus But the old MS. in the Cotton Library hath it Post 167 annos post adventum Christi One of the Cambridge MSS. post 164 annos In the margin whereof it is said That Nennius is grievously mistaken because Evaristus his time cannot agree to either of the Computations Evaristus dying according to the old Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome made about An. D. 354. when Trebonius Gallus and Metilius Bradua were Consuls which according to the Fasti both of Onuphrius Panvinius and Sir H. Savil was Anno Dom. 109. But Archbishop Vsher observes that in one Copy of Nennius he found the name of Eleutherius therefore I pass it over And yet the time of Eleutherius will not agree with either of these Computations For he was made Bishop of Rome according to the same Catalogue in the Consulship of Severus and Herennianus which according to those Fasti is Anno Dom. 172. But it will be too hard to press the point of Chronology too far when Bede according to different Computations sometimes puts Anno Dom. 156. and at another time Anno Dom. 167. But as long as it is generally agreed to have been in the time of M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus and the beginning of Eleutherius his Popedom I shall urge this matter no farther since it must come within a very little compass if the Characters of time must suit with it which Marianus Scotus saith was when Pollio and Aper were Consuls the sixteenth of M. Aurelius and Anno Dom. 176. according to the Dionysian account although Marianus follow another himself Which falls out to be the year before the Persecution of the Churches of Lyons and Vienna which as Eusebius saith was the seventeenth of M. Aurelius when Irenaeus was sent by them on a Message to Eleutherius Baronius places the Conversion of Lucius somewhat later in the beginning of Commodus Anno Dom. 183. But therein as Archbishop Vsher observes he hath all the more ancient Historians against him and it is onely his own mistake in the Chronology of the first Bishops of Rome which makes him say the time of Eleutherius will not agree to M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus wherein he is too much followed by our learned Antiquary Having then found no such inconsistency in the point of time but that if there were such a King as Lucius in Britain then he might well send to Eleutherius such a Message I now proceed to consider how far this Tradition of King Lucius can agree with the State of the British Affairs at that time The Britains being impatient of the Roman Yoke in Hadrian's time he comes over and brings new Legions with him And settles the whole Province in quietness and built his Wall to keep the other Britains in order Notwithstanding this in Antoninus his time the War broke out more fiercely and not onely the other Britains forced their Passage into the Roman Province but as Pausanias saith The Brigantes rebelled who for that cause had part of their Countrey taken from them But Lollius Vrbicus being sent hither he drove the Britains back built another Wall farther Northwards where Agricola formerly had placed his Garrisons as appears by the Inscriptions there taken up So that Lollius Vrbicus drove the Britains 100 miles Northward For so much is the distance between the Walls of Hadrian and Antoninus For all this the Britains brake out again with so much violence in the beginning of M. Aurelius Antoninus his Reign that Calphurnius Agricola was sent against them and from that time we reade of no disturbance here till the time of Commodus when Vlpius Marcellus was Roman Lieutenant This being the true State of Britain at that time what place is here left for such a King over Britain as Lucius is represented He must either be over the Britains beyond the Wall which overthrows one main part of the Tradition as to his settling the Churches here after his Conversion or he must be the Head of the Revolting Britains who were repressed by Calphurnius Agricola or he must be a subordinate King to the Romans such as Cogidunus and Prasutagus had been But then how comes he to command all Britain To have several Kings under him To change the Affairs of Religion as he thought fit Were these Privileges ever allowed to such Titulary Princes It is very true That the Romans did often suffer Kings to govern Provinces under them But then they were Provinces wholly subdued and compassed about with the Roman Forces on all sides But no Instance can be given where they suffer'd an Hereditary King of the same Countrey to enjoy full power over his Subjects whilest a great part of the Countrey was in Arms against them and ready to break out into a War wherein the Romans were in continual fear that the Natives within the Province should join with those without for their destruction For them in such a case as this to trust such a King as Lucius with the Government of the Province is to suppose them to have utterly lost those Arts whereby they attained so vast an Empire The Case of Antiochus in Asia Herod and his Children in Judaea Dejotarus in Galatia Ariobarzanes in Cappadocia and of many others that might be named will not at all make it probable where the Circumstances were so different and especially in such an Island as Britain was then accounted being incompassed with a Sea which the Romans thought dreadfull and almost unpassable Semota vasto disjuncta Britannia Ponto Cinctáque inaccessis horrida Littoribus whither Supplies could not come without difficulty and where the Inhabitants despised Death and Danger as they found by so tedious a War which was kept up so long here And after all they were forced to keep out their Enemies by Walls from Sea to Sea in several places So that the Romans never had the whole Island in subjection And therefore it is very improbable that they should trust the Power over it in the hands of a Native of the same Countrey Which Consideration makes me very hard to believe the Monkish Traditions concerning King Lucius But I do not deny that there was such a
whom Theodoret expresly calls the Arian Faction they there proceeded to the deposing Eustathius upon the Accusation of an infamous Person suborned to that purpose and afterwards prevailed with Constantine to banish him which being done Theodoret saith There was a Succession of Bishops who were secret Arians as of Eulalius Euphronius and Flaccillus and that was the Reason the Orthodox Party then separated themselves and were called Eustathians Socrates and Sozomen confess that the quarrel about Arianism was renew'd soon after the Council of Nice both in Egypt and in Bithynia Hellespont and Constantinople But Socrates saith It was begun about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was indeed the Pretext of the Quarrel but the true Ground was Arianism Socrates being a Man not throughly versed in these Matters blames both sides for contending about they knew not what both agreeing in the same Doctrine and yet not agrèeing among themselves But he did not penetrate into the depth of the Arians Designs as Theodoret a Man of far greater Judgment and Learning did And he proves from Eustathius an eminent Bishop of that time and one present in the Council of Nice that Arianism lay at the bottom and that they complied at first onely out of Fear but had the same hatred to the true Faith they ever had but after the Council they durst not so openly shew it Sozomen saith the Arian Party charged those who asserted Christ of the same Substance with the Father as the Council of Nice had determined with Sabellianism and Blasphemy and the followers of the Nicene Faith charged the others with Idolatry and Innovation as asserting three distinct Gods as to Substance when the Council had declared the Son of the same Substance with the Father And he ingenuously confesseth that it was generally believed that Eustathius was deposed at Antioch for adhering to the Nicene Faith and declaring himself against the Arian Party then prevailing in the East Who finding such success in their first attempt on Eustathius they next proceed against Athanasius the other great Champion of the Council of Nice They had conceived an inveterate hatred against him for his great zeal and activity in that Council but their rage brake forth after they heard that he succeeded Alexander in the See of Alexandria Eusebius of Nicomedia was his mortal Enemy who was removed to be near the Court though against the Canons yet he brake through all thereby to have opportunity to fill the Emperour's Mind with Jealousies and Suspicions of all those that opposed them and especially of Athanasius And Socrates gives the true Reason of the great Spite against Athanasius viz. that unless he were removed there was no hopes of the Arian Doctrine prevailing which he there confesses was the thing the Eusebians aimed at And now they thought such a Snare was laid for Athanasius which it was hardly possible for him to escape For upon Arius his Submission they advise Constantine to send him to Alexandria there to be received by Athanasius as the onely way to put an end to all the Disturbances of the Church Away goes Arius with the Emperour's Command to Athanasius Who according to their imagination refusing to admit him being anathematized by the Council as the first Broacher of a dangerous Heresie they easily exasperated the good Emperour against him as a seditious and turbulent Person and so plied him with one Accusation upon another that at last Constantine sent for him to appear before him upon an Information against him of no less than Treasonable Practices But upon a full hearing of the Matter by the Emperour himself he was acquitted and sent back with Marks of his Favour and vindication of his Innocency in an Epistle to the People of Alexandria part of which is extant in Sozomen and Theodoret but at large in Athanasius One would think this should have discouraged his Enemies from any farther Prosecution of him but these Eusebians were Men of restless ambitious implacable Spirits that scrupled no means to compass their ends which they thought they could never doe unless they could blast the Reputation of Athanasius To this end they laid a most malitious design against him First they draw in the Meletian Party in Egypt to join with them who hoped to get their ends one upon the other afterwards but at present they were willing to join together against their common Enemy for so Athanasius was accounted by them And Eusebius promised the Meletians great favour at Court if they would manage the business against Athanasius which they undertook and by their means so many Complaints were brought against Athanasius to the Emperour that he was forced for the general Satisfaction to appoint a Council at Tyre which was according to the Eusebians desire where things were managed with so little regard to Justice or common Honesty that after he had plainly cleared himself as to the main Accusations he yet found they were resolved to condemn him and therefore he privately withdrew from thence to the Imperial Court to acquaint the Emperour with the horrible Partiality there used Upon this he writes a very smart Letter to them and requires them to come speedily to him to give him an account of their violent Proceedings They send a select Number of their Party to Court with Eusebius of Nicomedia in the Head of them who there quit all the Accusations brought against Athanasius at Tyre and start a new one which touched the Emperour in a very tender part viz. That he had threatned to hinder the bringing Corn from Egypt to Constantinople which was in effect to threaten the starving his beloved City which nettled the Emperour so much that it transported him beyond his usual Temper and immediately he gave order for banishing Athanasius into Gaul Not long after Constantine died but before his death saith Theodoret he gave order for the recalling Athanasius to the great regret of Eusebius of Nicomedia then present Let any one now judge whether in Constantine 's time the Arian Faction were wholly supprest and whether Eusebius and his Party were men that onely pretended to Prudence and Moderation Who made use of the most malitious unjust abominable means to suppress the chiefest Opposers of the Arian Faction What will not such men say to serve a turn who dare to tell the World That the Eusebians were no less Enemies to the Arians than to the orthodox and that it is a great and common Mistake that Eusebius was the ringleader of the Arian Faction If it be a Mistake others have it from Athanasius and it is hard to believe that man ever read Athanasius his Writings who dare say the contrary All the Bishops of Egypt in their Synodical Epistle from Alexandria charge the Eusebians with a restlese desire to promote Arianism and affirm that their malitious prosecution of Athanasius was for no other
which being once effected it would be an easie matter to set up Arianism which was the thing they designed This Intrigue was not discovered fully till after the Council of Ariminum but was certainly carried on all along by the Eusebian Party who without these Artifices could never have deceived the Eastern Bishops who joined with them till they more openly declared themselves in the Council of Seleucia and then the difference was not between the Acacians and Eusebians as some have weakly conjectured but between the old Eusebians who now appear'd to be Arians under the Name of Acacius and the Followers of Basilius of Ancyra who stuck chiefly at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom Athanasius speaks before Now to draw in these Men and to hold them fast who had great sway in the Eastern Churches the Eusebians were forced to comply in words with them and in all probability to suffer them to draw up these Creeds provided onely that they left out the Nicene Decree and Anathema's which would doe their business at last So that the Eusebians were forced to the utmost Dissimulation and Hypocrisie to be able to carry on the Arian Design in the Eastern and Western Churches But whatever their Words and Pretences were their Actions sufficiently manifested their Intentions For they set themselves with the utmost violence against all who constantly adhered to the Council of Nice and openly favoured and preferr'd all the declared or secret Friends to Arianism They caused Athanasius to be banished a second time from Alexandria and appointed Gregory in his Place who continued there saith Theodoret with great Cruelty for six years and then was murthered himself by the Alexandrians but that seems to have been a mistake for George of Cappadocia who succeeded him For Athanasius saith he died a natural death but he at large describes the horrible Persecution both of the Clergy and Laity then in Egypt who would not comply with the Arians for his business was to set up Arianism as Athanasius saith After his Death Constantius finding so little success in those violent courses sends for Athanasius with great earnestness to come to him and gives him free Liberty to return to Alexandria and solemnly swears to him he would never more receive any Calumnies against him and writes several Letters on his behalf and one very kind one to himself after the death of his Brother Constans who was a true Friend to Athanasius and then his greatest Enemies courted him and begg'd his Pardon for what they had done being forced to it by the violence of the Torrent against him and even Vrsacius and Valens two warm Men of the Eusebian Party publickly recanted what they had done against him without his seeking and then anathematized the Arian Heresie But this was done while Constans was alive and so great a Number appeared in the Western Churches on his side but Constans being dead the Eusebian Party persuade Constantius to take heart once more and to try what he could doe to restore Arianism then Valens and Vrsacius recant their recantation and lay it all on the Fear of Constans and now to shew the Emperour's zeal for Arianism the publick allowance is taken from Athanasius and his Party and given to the Arians and the Magistrates threatned if they did not communicate with them and not onely the People banished that refused but the Bishops were summoned to appear in the Courts and were there told they must immediately subscribe or lose their Places But all this while Toleration was granted to all but to the followers of the Council of Nice And thus all Places were fill'd with Tumult and Disorder and the People forced their Bishops to the Tribunals for fear of being punished themselves And the Reason of this Violence was because the Arian Heresie was so much hated by the People and they hoped by this means to bring them to own it Heraclius the Emperour's Lieutenant declared in his Name that Athanasius was to be cast out and the Churches given to the Arians and required the People to receive such a Bishop as he should send viz. George of Cappadocia a violent Arian But the tragical Account of all the Persecutions which the orthodox Christians then underwent in Egypt from these Men of Prudence and Moderation is at large set down by Athanasius himself and in the concurrent Testimony of the People of Alexandria so that nothing seems to have been more violent and cruel in the Heathen Persecutions than was acted then under Syrianus and Heraclius in Egypt And that it was wholly for the sake of Arianism Athanasius evidently proves by this Argument That if a Man were guilty of never so great Crimes if he professed himself an Arian he escaped but if he were an Opposer of Arianism the greatest Innocency could not protect him But this was not the Case of Egypt alone but in other Places The best Qualification for a Bishop was to stand well inclined to Arianism as Athanasius affirms But otherwise though the Persons were never so well deserving one fault or other was found with them to cast them out So saith he it was with Eustathius Bishop of Antioch a Man famous for his Piety and Zeal yet because he appeared against Arianism feigned Accusations are brought against him and he is ejected with his Clergy and none but favourers of Arianism placed in their room and the like Examples he brings at Laodicea Tripolis Germanicia Sebustea Hadrianople and many other places insomuch that a considerable Bishop scarce any where appear'd against Arianism but they found some pretence or other to put him out and where they could alledge no other Cause they said It was the Pleasure of Constantius But their dealing with Paulus the Bishop of Constantinople was very remarkable He being chosen by the Anti-Arian Party and standing in the Way of Eusebius of Nicomedia whose heart was set upon that Bishoprick being so near the Imperial Court he first procured Paulus his Banishment to Pontus then he was sent in Chains to Singara of Mesopotamia thence to Emesa thence to Pontus thence to Cucusus where he was at length strangled by the Eusebian Party as Athanasius saith he had it from the Persons there present But although Macedonius who succeeded at Constantinople were of a temper violent enough as Sozomen shews yet Theodoret observes that even he was expelled Constantinople because he would not hold the Son of God to be a Creature For although he denied Christ to be Consubstantial with the Father yet he asserted him to be like the Father in all things and made the Holy Ghost to be a Creature by which he seem'd to deny the Son to be so and therefore could not keep the Favour of the Arian Party which then governed all in the Eastern Churches but yet in such a manner as by no means yet to declare for Arianism And therefore
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
Picts and the Scots after they had beaten them and then took occasion to quarrell with the Britains Onely they still endeavour'd to keep Vortigern firm to them To this purpose Nennius tells the Story of Hengist's fair Daughter Rovena and how Vortigern was insnared by her to the great dissatisfaction of the Britains Hector Boethius saith That Vodinus Bishop of London was killed by Hengist for reproving Vortigern for that Marriage But we must not be too strict upon Hector to put him to produce his Vouchers And the British History adds that Hengist being a subtile Man insinuated still into Vortigern That his own People did not love him and that they would depose him and set up Aurelius Ambrosius and by such Arts they widen'd the Distance between him and his People when they designed nothing less than the destruction of both It is certain by what Gildas and Bede have left that these heats soon brake out into open Flames to the Ruine and Desolation of the Countrey But how the War began and by what means it was first managed on the British side is not so clear But Nennius saith That when Vortigern 's wickedness grew so great as to marry his own Daughter he was condemned in solemn Council of the British Nation both Clergy and Laity and upon the Advice of his Nobles he withdrew himself from Affairs to a private Castle But the British History makes it worse viz. That the Britains forsook him and set up his Son Vortimer who behaved himself with great Courage and Resolution against the Saxons And then reckons up four Battels which he fought with them The first upon the Derwent the second at Episford or rather Alesford the third upon the Sea-shore when he drove them into their Ships and so home but the fourth is not mention'd After which Geffrey relates Vortimer's being poison'd by his Mother-in-law and the restoring of Vortigern and his calling for the Saxons back again Nennius speaks of Vortimer's fighting with Hengist and Horsus and adds his Success to have been so great as to have driven them into the Isle of Thanet and that there he besieged and beat and terrified them to that degree That they sent into Germany for fresh Succours by which they were enabled to manage the War with various Success against the Britains And then reckons up the three Battels just as Geffrey doth Onely the last he saith was upon the Sea-shore juxta lapidem tituli a little after which he saith that Vortimer died without any mention of Poison But he saith before his death he gave command to have his Body buried on the Sea-shore where the Saxons fled which was neglected and to which Nennius imputes their Return after which they could never be driven out Because as he saith It was the Divine Pleasure more than their own Valour which made them settle here And it is he that orders and rules the Nations of the Earth And who can resist his Will It is plain by all this that Nennius consulted the Honour of the British Nation as much as it was possible and nowhere useth that freedom which Gildas doth in setting forth the great Sins among them which provoked God to punish them in so severe a manner The Place where Vortimer desired to be buried is called by Nennius Lapis Tituli from whence Camden and Archbishop Vsher conceive it to be Stonar in the Isle of Thanet near Richborrow but Nennius saith onely It was upon the Shore of the French Sea From whence Mr. Somner rather concludes it to be Folkstone in Kent because of its lofty Situation whereas Stonar lies in a low and flat level apt to Inundations But then Nennius must have mistaken Lapis Tituli for Lapis Populi and I dare say Nennius was guilty of greater mistakes than that But he farther observes that in the ancient Records the name is not Stonar but Estonar which signifies the Eastern Border Shore or Coast. Matthew of Westminster gives this Account of these Proceedings That the British Nobility forsaking Vortigern set up Vortimer who with their Assistence pursued the Saxons to Derwent and there killed many of them Which seems to have been Darent in Kent thence Dartford as Camden observes is the same with Darenford But he makes Vortigern to have fled away with the Saxon Army and to have given them all the Assistence he could And then saith he Vortimer began to restore the Britains Possessions to them and to rebuild their Churches and to shew kindness to the Churchmen The next year he saith The Saxons fought again with the Britains at Ailesford and after a sharp Fight the Saxons fled and great multitudes of them were slain Not long after Vortimer with his Brothers Catigern and Pascentius and the whole Nation of the Britains made War with the Saxons and in Battel Catigern was killed by Horsus and Horsus by Vortimer upon which the Saxon Army fled The next year he saith Hengist fought three Battels with Vortimer and at last he was forced to go back into Germany and four years after Vortimer saith he was poison'd Anno Dom. 460. and buried in London and then Vortigern recalled the Saxons William of Malmsbury saith That the Britains and Saxons agreed for seven years after their Landing and then Vortimer finding their Deceit incensed his Father and the Britains against them and so for twenty years there was continual War and light Skirmishes and four pitched Battels In the first he makes their Fortune equal Horsa being killed on one side and Catigis on the other In the rest the Saxons being always superiour and Vortimer dead a Peace was made And so the Britains Affairs went ill till Ambrosius recover'd them Henry of Huntingdon relates this Story after a different manner He tells us That Vortigern after the Marriage of Hengist's Daughter was so hated that he withdrew to the Mountains and Woods and that he and his Castle were consumed together After which Ambrosius Aurelianus with Vortigern's two Sons Vortimer and Catiger fought the Saxons And he makes the first Battel at Ailestreu or Elstree the next after Vortimer's Death at Creganford or Crayford in which he saith the Britains were quite beaten out of Kent and from thence he begins the Saxons Kingdom of Kent The next he saith was at Wippedsflede which was so terrible on both Sides That from thence he saith That the Saxons and Britains did not disturb each other for a great while they remaining within Kent and the Britains quarrelling among themselves Florentius Wigorniensis therein differs from the rest that he makes the Battel at Aegelsthrep to have been between Vortigern and Hengist But he saith after the Battel at Creccanford the Britains fled to London and left Kent to the Saxons Wherein he follows the Saxon Annals as he doth in the Account of the two other Battels that at Wippedsfleot and that which he calls the great Victory over the Britains
by Hengist and Esca his Son which he places Anno Dom. 473. when he saith the Britains fled from the Saxons as from Fire Fabius Ethelwerd agrees with the Saxon Annals and Florentius in these Particulars And so doth Asserius in his MSS. Annals as to Vortigern's fighting with Hengist Wherein they very much differ from the British Traditions But after the Translation of the British History by Geffrey the Monkish Historians generally follow that as to the Success of these Battels and as to the Treachery used towards Vortigern by Hengist upon Salisbury Plain near Ambresbury Where it is said by Geffrey that the Saxons killed 470 of the British Nobility under a Pretence of a Treaty of Peace Nennius saith but 300 and that Vortigern was then taken and was forced to give Estsex Suthsex and Middlesex for his Redemption This Story passes for current among the Monks and our late Collectours of English History And that which seems to add most weight to it is That William of Malmsbury relates it but he reports it much as he found it in Nennius onely inlarging on the drinking part that went before the Massacre But when I find the same Story in effect in Witikindus between the Saxons and the Thuringers and the very same Word given NEM ET EOVR SEAXES I am apt to think one was borrowed from the other But I cannot but take notice of the Disingenuity of Verstegan who lays this to the Charge of the Thuringers whereas Witikindus not onely saith the Saxons did it but adds That the Saxons struck terrour into their Neighbours by it and saith They were thought to have their Name from it as Verstegan himself thinks Which were ridiculous unless the Seaxes belong'd to the Saxons All the certainty we have as to the matter of the Proceedings between the Britains and Saxons is what Gildas relates which is very Tragical viz. That all the Cities and Churches were burnt to the Ground from the East to the Western Ocean The Inhabitants destroyed by the Sword or buried in the Ruines of Houses and Altars which were defiled with the Bloud of the Slain in which horrible Devastation the Rulers of the Church and the Priests suffered together with the Common People So that he applies to this Desolation the Words of the Psalmist They have cast Fire into thy Sanctuary they have defiled by casting down the dwelling Place of thy Name to the Ground And O God the Heathen are come into thine Inheritance thy holy Temple have they defiled c. And Bede saith A Fire was kindled by the hands of the Heathens which executed Vengeance on God's People for their Sins not unlike that of the Chaldeans which burnt Jerusalemto the Ground So here saith he the wicked Conquerour prevailing or rather the just Judge so disposing there seem'd to be one continued Flame from one Sea to another All publick and private Buildings demolished the Priests Bloud spilt upon the Altars the Prelates and People destroy'd together by Fire and Sword and no Man durst to give them Burial Many of those that escaped at present as Gildas saith had their Throats cut and were thrown on Heaps in the Mountains or delivered themselves up to Slavery to avoid being famished and thought it a Favour to be presently dispatched and others hid themselves among Mountains and Rocks and Woods to escape the Fury of their Enemies where they lived in continual Fear and others went over into foreign parts Which was the Foundation of the Aremorican Colony of Britains as will appear afterwards But that which prevented a total Destruction of the Britains now was that it seems both by Gildas and Bede the Saxons having burnt so many Cities and Towns and driven the Remainder of the Inhabitants into inaccessible Places did go home for some time And in that Interval the dispersed Britains gathered together and after most earnest Supplications to God that they might not be utterly destroyed they made choice of Ambrosius Aurelianus as their King and under his Conduct God was pleased to give them Success And from that time saith Gildas now one Party prevailed and then another whereby God made a farther Tryal of the Britains whether they would love him or not to the Battel on Badon Hill wherein the Saxons suffer'd so great a Loss Which was forty four years after their first coming hither as appears more plainly by Bede But Gildas adds even at this time their Cities were far from being inhabited as formerly And when their Enemies gave them respite they desperately quarrell'd among themselves So that we have here a Conjunction of so much Severity and Patience such Fears and Hopes and yet such Defeating of these Hopes by their own Follies and Divisions as commonly fore-run a Churches Destruction and a Peoples Ruine This is the best and truest Account of the British Affairs from the Saxons coming till the Government of Ambrosius by which we are to judge of the probability of Nennius his Traditions As to the particular Conduct of the British Affairs under Ambrosius we have little more light than what Traditions and Conjectures give us However it may not be amiss to lay together what we can find about them Nennius saith little more of him than that Vortigern was afraid of him and afterwards he confounds him with Merlin when he tells Vortigern after the Story of his being without a Father that he concealed his Father's Name out of Fear but that his Father was one of the Roman Consuls and so Vortigern gave him the command of the Western parts of Britain But Geffrey gives a more ample account of him not onely that he was one of Constantine's Sons But that he understanding the condition of the Britains came over from Aremorica with his Brother Vther Pendragon and considerable Forces and after his Revenge upon Vortigern burning him in his Castle he makes the Saxons to retire beyond Humber through the terrour of his Name Whither Aurelius pursued them and overcame Hengist in a set Battel who fled to Caer Conan or Conisburgh where they fought again and Hengist was taken by Eldol Duke of Gloucester and beheaded by him according to the Advice of Eldad then Bishop of Gloucester Matthew Westminster transcribes these Passages out of Geffrey and puts them to such years as he fansied but it is observable that he makes Aurelius Ambrosius to have fought the Battel at Wippeds fleet with Hengist and his Son Aesc 16 years before this which according to him was seven years after his coming into Britain So that even Matthew Westminster durst not wholly rely on Geffrey's Relation But as to the death of Hengist Florentius saith he died after he had reigned in Kent thirty four years and Aesca succeeded him Anno Dom. 488. The Saxon Annals take no notice of Hengist's death but place Aesc's Reign Anno Dom. 487. Henry of Huntingdon saith That Hengist died the fortieth year after his coming
North against Ambrosius among the Britains who were overcome by him and put to flight but afterwards he hired a Saxon to poison Ambrosius at Winchester This saith Matthew Westminster happen'd Anno Dom. 497. But we are not to pass over what he affirms of him Anno Dom. 485. viz. That he commanded in the Battel at Mecredsburn against Aella and his Sons in which they were so much worsted as to send home for Supplies as he saith This Aella and his Sons Cymen Plenting and Cissa came into Britain Anno Dom. 477. and landed at a place from his eldest Son called Cymenshore on the Coasts of Sussex Camden saith it hath lost its Name But he proves from a Charter of Cedwalla to the Church of Selsey it must be near Wittering Here Aella and his Army fought the Britains at his first Landing and forced them to retire to Andredeswald say the Saxon Annals and Matt. Westminster Florentius and Huntingdon The Saxon Annals and Huntingdon call it Andredesleage by that no question is meant the vast Wood which began in Kent and ran through Sussex into Hampshire called by the Britains Coid Andred by the Saxons Andred and Andreswald from whence as Mr. Somner observes that part of Kent where the Wood stood is still called the Weald and Lambard observes that no Monuments of Antiquity are to be met with in the Weald either of Kent or Sussex The Saxons after this Battel continued to inhabit on the Shore till at last the Britains finding them to incroach farther resolved to fight them at a place called Mecredsburn And a different account is given of the Success of this Battel The Saxon Annals and Ethelwerd onely mention it boasting of no Victory Florentius makes it a clear Victory on the Saxon side Matt. Westminster saith Aella quitted the field but confesseth the Britains had great loss H. of Huntingdon saith It was a drawn Battel both Armies having sustained great damage and avoiding each other After this Aella and Cissa say the Saxon Annals besieged Andredescester and killed all the Inhabitants leaving not one Britain alive and so Florentius and Matt. Westminster relate it But he saith That the Britains came out of the Wood and galled the Saxons so much that they were forced to divide their Army and the Inhabitants perished by Famine as well as by the Sword And he observes that the Saxons utterly demolished the City and the place where it stood was in his time shewed to Travellers Therefore the question among our Antiquaries which was the Anderida of the Ancients Newenden or Hastings or Pemsey is quite out of doors unless one of these be proved to be built in the place of Anderida since Matt. Westminster's days which were towards the end of Edw. 3. Those words Camden applies onely to H. of Huntingdon and he saith it was new built in Edw. 1. his time and therefore called Newenden but they are likewise Matt. Westminster 's who lived after that time and therefore it cannot be Newenden if it were rebuilt in the time of Edw. 1. for he saith The desolate place was shewed in his time unless one transcribed the other without any regard to the difference of their own times After Ambrosius his death according to the British History his Brother Vther Pendragon succeeded who routed the Saxons in the North relieved York besieged by them took the Sons of Hengist Prisoners marched to London and there called a Parliament and was solemnly Crowned and fell out with Goalois Duke of Cornwall about his Wife Igerna and under his shape had King Arthur by her but her Husband was killed at the Siege of his Castle After which it is said that he overcame the Saxons at Verulam where he was after poisoned by their means and his Son Arthur succeeded This is the summ of what is there more at large related but taking it all together it is a very blind and partial account of the proceedings between the Britains and Saxons of that time For even Matt. Westminster Anno Dom. 494 takes notice of Cerdic and Kenric his Son Landing with new Forces at a place called from him Cerdicshore near Yarmouth saith Camden where the name Cerdicsand still remains and fought the Britains at their first Landing till they were forced to withdraw and leave room for them who after went into the Western parts and laid the foundation of the Kingdom of the West Saxons To the same purpose Florentius Ethelwerd and Huntingdon Seven years after him came Port and his two Sons Bleda and Magla and arrived at Portsmouth which had its Name from him as the same Authours inform us from the Saxon Annals Now how comes Geffrey to think of none of these but onely of Hengist's two Sons in the North Besides he lets slip one of the greatest Battels that was fought between Cerdic and Nathanleod and pretends to give no account at all of it This the Saxon Annals Florentius Ethelwerd and Matt. Westminster all place Anno Dom. 508. But Huntingdon the sixtieth year after the first coming of the Saxons This Nazaleod as he calls him was the greatest King of the Britains one of great Fame and Pride from whom the Countrey about Charford did take its Name At this place the whole Forces of the Britains were gathered together and Cerdic procured assistence from Aesc of Kent from Aella of Sussex from Port and his Sons so that here was a pitched Battel of the Strength of both sides and Nazaleod behaved himself with so much Courage that he drove Cerdic out of the Field and pursued him which his Son who commanded the other Wing perceiving followed him close and cut him off and 5000 of his Men who fled upon the death of their King And from this memorable Battel the Place was called Cerdicsford and since Charford upon the Aven between Salisbury and Ringwood But who was this mighty King of the Britains who lost his Life in this Battel Mr. Camden professes he cannot ghess unless it were Aurelius Ambrosius whose Name he observes the Saxon Annalists never mention nor the Battels wherein they were worsted And the British History is even with them for that which takes no notice of this great Fight wherein their King was slain Matt. Westminster will not have him to be King but onely to be General under Vther who was then sick which contradicts Ethelwerd and Huntingdon and Florentius who affirm him to have been then King and as Huntingdon saith Rex Maximus Britannorum which seems to imply that there were more Kings then among the Britains as there were among the Saxons and that one was the Chief as in the Heptarchy Archbishop Vsher thinks this King was the same whom the British History calls Vther and that Nathanleod was his true Name and Vther was a Nick-name to denote his fierceness as the Annotatour on Nennius calls Arthur Mab Vter in the British Tongue for the same reason And so Arthurus in Latine
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
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