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
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
suppress them and the latter sent Lupicinus his General who arrived at London about the time the Council of Ariminum was dissolved and therefore in a time of such Confusion in the British Province it is not strange that these Churches should not be in so plentifull a condition as those which were the Seat of Trade and Government And Ammianus Marcellinus observes that the Provincial Bishops lived in a much meaner condition than those of the greater Cities especially of Rome And although a Heathen he very much commends them for their Temperance Humility and Modesty But Arianism was not the onely Heresie the British Churches were charged with For Gildas from hence makes every following Heresie to find a passage hither among which the chief was Pelagianism And Bede doth insinuate That Pelagius being a Britain and spreading his Doctrine far and near did corrupt these Churches with it which some late Writers having taken up have affirmed that both Pelagius and Coelestius after their Repulse at Rome came over into Britain and dispersed their Doctrine here Leland sadly laments the Condition of the Church of God that had no sooner recover'd it self from Arianism but a new Heresie sprung up to disturb the Peace and infect the minds of Christians But as Egypt brought forth the Authour of the former Heresie so did Britain the Authour of this which took his name from hence And is supposed to have been Morgan in British which by his conversation at Rome he turned into Pelagius And St. Augustine saith He was commonly called Pelagius Brito to distinguish him as he supposed from another Pelagius of Tarentum Leland observes that some made him a Britain as being born in that Bretagn which was called Aremorica on the Continent But I do not find that it had then lost its name of Aremorica The first time we find the name of Britannia given to that Countrey is in the Subscription of Mansuetus to the Council of Tours where he is named Episcopus Britannorum after which time it was frequently called Britannia Cismarina Minor Celtica c. Dempster not a Jesuit but a Lawyer takes it very ill of Browerus the Jesuit that he makes Pelagius a Scot But not as Dempster understands him For he explains himself That he meant one that came out of Ireland and therefore was Scoticae Originis For which he quotes Saint Jerome But Archbishop Vsher hath observed That he speaks there not of Pelagius but of Coelestius whom he makes the Cerberus to the Pluto according to his usual way of complementing his Adversaries But both he thinks came out of the British Islands The late Publisher of Marius Mercator endeavours to shew That our learned Primate was herein mistaken And that Saint Jerome doth not speak of Coelestius but of Pelagius himself And that by Pluto he means Ruffinus dead in Sicily three years before St. Jerome 's writing these Words But notwithstanding he did still bark through Pelagius his Mouth whom he compares to a great Scotch Mastiff from which Countrey he is derived in the Neighbourhood of Britain If these Words relate onely to Ruffinus and Pelagius it is certain that St. Jerome would have it believed That Pelagius came out of Ireland That which makes it most probable that he means them is That in the Preface to his Commentaries on Ezekiel he mentions the death of Ruffinus and then saith he hoped now he should be quiet to go on with his Commentaries on the Scriptures But not long after he complains That there were others which in his Room open'd their Mouths against him In the beginning of his Commentaries on Jeremiah which he undertook after he had finished those on Ezekiel he mentions one who carped at his Commentaries on the Ephesians and calls Grunnius i. e. Ruffinus his Forerunner And saith he was Scotorum pultibus praegravatus made fat with Scotch Flummery All this agrees very well with Pelagius whom Grosius describes as a very corpulent Man But there is one thing which makes the former Opinion not improbable which is That St. Jerome himself takes so much notice that Pelagius at that time wrote little or nothing about these matters but Coelestius was the Man who appeared especially in the two main Points about Original Sin and the Possibility of Perfection In his Epistle to Ctesiphon he saith That the Author of the Sect still held his Peace and his Disciples wrote for him Magistrorum silentia profert rabies Discipulorum Methinks Rabies agrees well enough with Cerberus and here it is meant of the Disciple Coelestius and not of Pelagius Which Expression answers very well to the other Mutus Magister latrat per Albinum Canem And he speaks as if he designed to draw him from his closeness and retirement Which doth far better agree to the mute Person than to the barking Cerberus There is then no Improbability that Coelestius and Pelagius may be both meant But if any other Countrey hath a mind to challenge Coelestius to themselves I think they may be allow'd to put in their Claim notwithstanding these Expressions But it is very unworthy in the same Author to prove Pelagius to have been an Irish Scot and at the same time to charge his Vices on the British Nation He cannot deny That Pelagius had a great natural sharpness of Wit since St. Augustine and his other Adversaries allow it But then he saith it was fierce and contentious after the fashion of his Countrey and which he could not shake off by his long Conversation at Rome He grants that his Exhortations to Piety were vehement and earnest but written in an uncouth and imperious Style more Gentis according to the humour of his Nation But why must the British Nation be reproached for the particular faults of Pelagius It is a very ill way of confuting Pelagius to attribute Mens Vices and Vertues to their Countries And is contrary both to the discretion of a Philosopher and to the Grace of a Christian Pelagius might have had the same temper if he had been so happy as to have been born in a Neighbour Countrey And I do not see how his Way of writing doth affect the British Churches Where the Christians might be very wise and humble notwithstanding this severe and unjust Character of the British Nation Which as all National Reproaches is not so great a Reproach to any as to him that gives it But the greatest Adversaries to Pelagius did not give him so ill a Character Saint Augustine saith he had the esteem of a very Pious man and of being a Christian of no mean rank Was this Pro more Gentis too And of his Learning and Eloquence St. Augustine gives sufficient Testimony in his Epistle to Juliana the Mother of Demetrias to whom Pelagius wrote an Epistle highly magnified for the Wit and Elegance of it But Garnerius will not allow that Pelagius was able to write it
their meeting in Council on purpose and chusing and dispatching St. German and Lupus without any intimation of Celestine Baronius and Jansenius go about to reconcile these things by saying Either that the Pope approved him whom the Council chose Or that the Pope left it to the Council to chuse But neither of these will hold For Prosper saith That Celestine sent him Vice suâ in his own Name and stead Which is very different from appointing a Council to chuse one to be sent And Constantius saith That immediately they went Which shews they did not stay for the Pope's Approbation And withall the kindness was not so great at that time between Celestine and the Gallican Bishops That either he should send to them to appoint or they should wait for his direction in this matter For Prosper and Hilary had made great Complaints of them at Rome as favouring Pelagianism too much And among these Hilary Bishop of Arles was the chief For Prosper complains of him particularly in his Epistle to St. Augustine which was sent to him Anno Dom. 428 or 429. as the late Editors of St. Augustine's Epistles conclude So that Hilary was Bishop of Arles at that time before St. Augustine's death Anno Dom. 430. After his death the same Prosper and another Hilary join in a Complaint to Celestine and went to Rome on purpose as appears by his Answer who therein reproves the Bishops of Gaul for giving too much countenance to some Presbyters who vented new Doctrines viz. Cassian and his Followers and who reflected on the memory of St. Augustine It is not therefore any ways probable that the Gallican Bishops having been complained of so long before St. Augustine's death that he wrote a Book in answer to them before he died should be intrusted by Celestine to chuse Persons to go over into Britain to confute Pelagianism when he suspected them from Prosper's information to be too much inclined to it It seems therefore most likely that St. German and Lupus were sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops without the Pope's concurrence since Constantius who certainly knew all the circumstances of this matter saith nothing at all of it And this St. German was so great with Hilary Bishop of Arles that he joined with him in the deposing Chelidonius for which Pope Leo was so incensed against him as Honoratus affirms in his Life which was no new acquaintance but of so long standing that if Hilary of Arles were at that time suspected at Rome St. German would harldly have been pitched upon by Celestine for his Legate into Britain I wonder how Baronius and Vossius came to mistake the Hilary who joined with Prosper for Hilary Bishop of Arles Since this Hilary never was a Disciple of St. Augustine's as the other was And he was certainly Bishop of Arles after St. Augustine's death when Celestine mentions the other Hilary as present with Prosper at Rome when they informed against the Bishops of Gaul For Honoratus succeeded Patroclus in the See of Arles Prosper saith that Patroclus was killed Anno Dom. 426. Honoratus continued but two years in the See And so Hilary might well be newly Bishop of Arles when Prosper and the other Hilary sent to St. Augustine as plainly appears by their Epistle So that Semipelagianism did not as Archbishop Vsher supposes then begin in Gaul when St. Germanus and Lupus were here employ'd against Pelagianism but was begun before and embraced by those very Bishops who sent them hither Who for their own Vindication appear'd zealous against Pelagianism and were therefore willing to embrace this opportunity to send two of their Number into Britain And it is the more strange that so Learned a Person should fall into this mistake when he had so fully proved as Holstenius confesses That Hilary Bishop of Arles did favour the Semipelagians and it is certain that Prosper did complain of him to St. Augustine if the Copies be not corrupt as he shews they are not before St. German's voyage into Britain For St. Augustine received the Complaint time enough to write his two Books of Predestination and Perseverance in answer to it after his Book of Retractations and before his elaborate Work against Julian and therefore they are probably supposed to be written Anno Dom. 428. If we then yield that St. German's coming hither was when Prosper saith Anno Dom. 429. yet we find that Semipelagianism had prevailed among the Gallican Bishops before that time or else there was no cause at all for Prosper's Complaint And to make it appear yet more improbable that Celestine should send St. Germanus and St. Lupus We are to consider that Lupus was Brother to Vincentius Lirinensis and were both of the same Society Which Vincentius was a great Stickler in the Semipelagian Cause as all the Members of that Society that were considerable were engaged in it And when the Pope wrote so smartly against the Accusers of St. Augustine's Doctrine it is very unlikely he should pitch upon one of that Society most suspected for it and whose Brother appeared so early and so warmly in it Not onely by the Objections under his Name in Prosper But by the whole Design of his Commonitorium Which if I mistake not was levell'd against those who went about to broach a new Doctrine about Predestination as they said under St. Augustine's name And they who carefully reade over that Discourse and consider the drift of it will find I am not mistaken But Baronius is when he would clear the Authour of the Commonitorium from favouring those who impugned St. Augustine's Doctrine about Predestination Which was quite another thing from favouring Pelagianism which Cassianus Faustus and this Vincentius all professed to abhor But what shall be said to Prosper who affirms that Celestine sent St. German 1. Prosper in his undoubted Work against Cassian doth not affirm it For there he onely saith That Celestine took care to free Britain from Pelagianism Why is not the Mission of St. German here mention'd when it had been most seasonable against the chief of the Semipelagians No doubt Prosper would not have lost this Opportunity of magnifying Celestine's care by sending Bishops of so great Reputation Especially if these Bishops were not Semipelagians But if so why doth he not mention them in that Work as such when he complains how much Semipelagianism did prevail and even among their Bishops 2. The Prosper published by Pithaeus never mentions it which he thought to be the genuine Chronicon of Prosper Hadrianus Valescus concludes one or the other not to be genuine since they differ in point of time and it is not probable the same Man would write two several Books about the same matter with such Diversity Bucherins thinks it impossible the same Person should write both yet both pass under the Name of Tyro Prosper and so he saith the ancient MS. of it which he had which
hath said We are not born to be judged but we are judged before we are born According to which Doctrine saith Faustus There can be no Equity in the day of Iudgment It hath been a great Question among some Learned Men whether there were any Persons who drew ill Consequences from Saint Augustine's Doctrine and were therefore opposed by Faustus and others or whether it were the mere Doctrine of St. Augustine that was so opposed by them and urged with those Consequences as following from it I see no Reason to deny that the Semipelagians did charge the Followers of St. Augustine with the same things which are made the Opinions of those who are called the Predestinatian Hereticks by Sigebert Gennadius Hincmarus and others But yet that there were certain Persons who did own such bad Consequences as the overthrowing the Liberty of Man's Will and the Necessity of our Endeavours will appear from these two Reasons 1. St. Augustine's Doctrine was so misunderstood by some in his Life time as appears by the Controversie amongst the Adrumetine Monks The Case was this Florus one of that Society going to Vzala a City near Vtica between Hippo and Carthage where Euodius was then Bishop a Friend of St. Augustine's there met with St. Augustine's large Epistle to Sixtus against the Pelagians which being sent home and Florus himself going to Carthage before his return they were fallen into great Heats upon the Occasion of that Epistle Some of them as St. Augustine himself saith did so preach up the Grace of God as to deny Free-will and consequently to say That God in the day of Iudgment would not render to men according to their Works Others said That our Free-will was assisted by the Grace of God that we may know and doe the things that are right That the Lord when he comes to render to every Man according to their Works may find our Works good which he hath prepared that we may walk in them And they saith he who judge thus do judge rightly Therefore those who thought otherwise did mistake his Doctrine For as he saith If there be no Grace there can be no Salvation If there be no Free-will there can be no day of Iudgment To what purpose is all this if some of these did not so misunderstand his Doctrine as to overthrow all Liberty of Will in Mankind And so Euodius in his Answer to those Adrumetine Monks shews That there is still Free-will in us but wounded by the Fall and onely recoverable by the Grace of Christ. Jansenius grants that they did misunderstand St. Augustine 's Doctrine thinking that Free-will was wholly destroyed by it And that no Man ought to be reproved when he doeth amiss but that others ought to pray that he may have Grace to doe better But the President Mauguin will not allow this For he saith That St. Augustine was at first falsely informed of the state of the Controversie among them by Cresconius and Felix But after Florus his coming he found they were Semipelagians who misunderstood his Doctrine But to what purpose then doth St. Augustine take such pains to prove even in the Book he wrote after the coming of Florus That there is Free-will still left in Mankind Liberum itaque arbitrium confitendum nos est habere ad malum ad bonum faciendum Not so as to exclude the necessity of Divine Grace as he proves at large but yet in such a manner as to shew its consistency with Divine Commands and the just Reproof and Punishment of those who doe amiss Which shews plainly That he thought there were some still who misinterpreted his Doctrine not barely to object against it but to make ill use of it Therefore Noris had no Reason to conclude that the Errour of the Adrumetine Monks was Semipelagianism 2. It appears evidently from the Case of Lucidus and the Councils of Arles and Lyons I grant that the Objections mentioned by Prosper and Hilary were made by the Semipelagians and not by any Predestinatian Hereticks at that time in Gaul and therein Sirmondus was certainly mistaken as he was likewise when he saith that the Epistle of Celestine was against the latter and not against the former But it appears by Faustus his Epistle to Lucidus that there were some who did so assert Predestination as to make all Mens Endeavours vain and useless And this dangerous Errour he renounced in his Recantation delivered to the Council of Arles Mauguin is very hard put to it when he saith That all these things were the mere invention of Faustus whom he makes to be Countreyman with Pelagius and Coelestius and to have sucked in the Poison of Pelagianism with his Milk He grants that he was famous for his Wit Eloquence and Philosophy But especially for a profound cunning which Isidore mentions in him From whence he endeavours to prove by many Arguments That these Councils and Epistles were all forged by Faustus But he is so far from persuading Learned Men to be of his Mind That Noris himself confesseth he can never assent to it And although it be looked on as part of the cunning of Faustus That he designed to convey his Books so privately to his Countreymen the Britains as appears by the Epistle of Sidonius Apollinaris to him yet it is utterly incredible that he should forge two Councils and set down the Names of several Bishops as present in them with whom Sidonius Apollinaris was particularly acquainted and yet he not discover the Cheat and Imposture But the Jansenists yield that both those Councils were held about Anno Domini 475. But they say that the Bishops were partly Semipelagians partly deceived by Faustus who was so And Noris doth not deny that there were other Persons who were then charged with those Opinions which Lucidus held But he saith they were not many nor considerable enough to make a Sect And that they did not willingly yield those Consequences But not knowing how to answer the Semipelagians they were forced to assert them Which their Adversaries therefore charged them with as their own Opinions Which seems no improbable Account of those called Predestinatians It cannot be denied that Faustus his Books were severely censured after his death not onely by the Scythian Monks at Constantinople among whom Joh. Maxentius was the chief but by the African Bishops who were then Exiles in Sardinia by whom Fulgentius was employ'd to write against them But Possessor one of the African exiled Bishops being then at Constantinople and finding great Heats about Faustus his Books sends to Pope Hormisdas to know his Judgment about them Which he did at the request of Vitalianus and Justinianus two of the greatest Men in the Emperour's Court. He returns a cautious Answer as to Faustus Which by the way shews how little Credit is to be given to the Decree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Books for therein Faustus his Books are
Empire would not seem to come behind them in this So Hunibaldus gives as formal an Account of the descent of the Franks from Antenor and as good a Succession of their Kings down from him with the particular Names of Persons and the time of their Reigns as either Geffrey doth of the British Kings from Brutus or Hector of the Scots from Fergus or the Irish Annals from Gathelus or Heremon And that this is no late Invention appears from hence That Aimoinus Ado Viennensis Abbas Vrspergensis Rorico Gaguinus Aeneas Silvius and others agree with Hunibaldus in the Substance of his Story And Vignier mentions several Diplomata of the ancient Kings of the Franks to prove the Authentickness of this Tradition And it is less to be wonder'd at that the Britains should pretend to be derived from the Trojans because of the mixture of the Romans and them together while Britain continued so long a Roman Province From whence I suppose the first Occasion was taken which continued as a Tradition among the Britains for a long time before it was brought into such a History as we find in Geffrey That the Tradition it self was elder than his time is certain For even those who despised Geffrey embraced it as appears by Giraldus Cambrensis And in the Saxon times this Tradition was known as is evident by the Saxon Poet mention'd by Abr. Whelock But Nennius his MS. puts it out of dispute That there was then a Tradition about the Britains coming from Brute but he could not tell what to make of this Brute sometimes he was Brito the Son of Ysicion the Son of Alan of the Posterity of Japhet And for this he quotes the Tradition of his Ancestours But this being uncapable of much Improvement or Evidence he then runs to Brutus the Roman and sometimes it is Brutus the Consul But that not suiting so well he then produces the Story of Aeneas and Ascanius and Silvius and the Prediction of the Magician that his Son should kill his Father and Mother she died in Labour and his Father was killed by him by chance However he was banished from Italy into Greece And from thence again banished and so came into Gaul and there built Tours having its Name from one of his Companions And from thence he came for Britain which took its Name from him and he filled it with his Progeny which continue to this day So that here we have the Foundation of Geffrey's History laid long before his time And Nennius his Account is mention'd by William of Malmsbury under the Name of Gesta Britonum And follow'd by Henry of Huntingdon and Turgott or Simeon Dunelmensis But when Geffrey's Book came abroad it was so improved and adorned with Particulars not elsewhere to be found that the generality of the Monkish Historians not onely follow'd but admir'd it and pitied those that had not seen it as they supposed as Ranulphus Cestrensis doth William of Malmsbury But there were some Cross-grained Writers who called it an Imposture as Gul. Newburgensis or a Poetical Figment as John Whethamsted But these were but few in Comparison with those who were better pleased with the Particulars of a Legend than the dryness of a true History But this humour was not peculiar to the Franks and Britains For the Saxons derived themselves from the Macedonian Army of Alexander which had three Captains saith Suffridus Petrus Saxo Friso and Bruno From whom are descended the Saxons Frisians and those of Brunswick And Abbas Stadensis adds That not onely the Saxons but those of Prussia Rugia and Holstein came from them Gobelinus Persona relates the Particulars as exactly as Geffrey or Hector or the Irish Annals do how they were left on the Caspian Mountains and wandred up and down just as Brutus and Gathelus did till they settled in Prussia Rugen and Saxony The Danes saith Dudo S. Quintin derived themselves from the Danai The Prussians from Prusias King of Bithynia who brought the Greeks along with him Onely the Scots and Irish had the Wit to derive themselves from the Greeks and Egyptians together We are now to sit down and consider what is to be said to all these glorious Pretences Must they be all allowed for good and true History If not what marks of distinction can we set between them They all pretend to such Founders as came afar off wandred from place to place consulted Oracles built Cities founded Kingdoms and drew their Succession from many Ages So that it seems unreasonable to allow none but our own And yet these Antiquities will hardly pass any where but with their own Nation And hardly with those of any Judgment in any of them But when all this is said every one will believe as he pleases But it is one thing to believe with the Will and another with the Vnderstanding To return now to the Irish Antiquities And it onely remains that we enquire How the Irish Antiquaries give an Account of their Nations coming into the Northern Parts of Britain And here is something which deserves Consideration viz. That they charge the Scotish Antiquaries with placing the time of Fergus I. 819 years before he landed in Britain For say they the Irish Monuments fix on Anno Dom. 498. as the time wherein Fergus Mor the Son of Erch whom the Scotish Writers call the Son of Ferchard with his five Brothers invaded the North of Britain To this purpose they produce the Testimony of Tigernacus who in his Annals saith Fergus Mor mhac Ercha cum gente Dalraida partem Britanniae tenuit ibi mortuus est This he writes about the beginning of Pope Symmachus which was about six years after the death of St. Patrick and very near the end of the fifth Century Besides another Irish Authour who writes of the Kings of Albany who were contemporary with the Monarchs of Ireland reckons twenty years between the Battel of Ocha and the going of the six Sons of Erc into Albany And the Annals of Vlster place the Battel of Ocha A. D. 483. so that Fergus his coming into Scotland could not be before the beginning of the sixth Century Gratianus Lucius saith that the Battel of Ocha wherein Oilliol Molt the Irish Monarch who succeeded Leogarius was killed was Anno Dom. 478. Which makes but five years difference Farther say they The Scotish Antiquaries make Reuda the sixth King after Fergus Whereas it appears by their Annals That their Monarch Conair had three Sons called the three Cairbres and the third was Cairbre Riada from whom that part of Britain was called Dal Riada or Dal Reuda But Conair was killed An. Dom. 165. and therefore this Reuda must be 300 years before Fergus The Old MS. cited by Camden makes Fergus to be descended from Conair with which as Archbishop Vsher observes the old Irish Genealogies agree But he saith Conair reign'd Anno
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
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