Seals to them And therefore I think Ingulphus ought not to be taken in so strict a sense that there were no Seals in use before the Norman times but that Deeds or Charters before were good or valid by bare Crosses and Marks with Subscriptions without Seals But that the Normans would allow none that had no Seals to them And this upon due consideration will appear to be the true meaning of Ingulphus And the same MS. Authour commends the discretion of the Saxon way of confirming Charters above that of the Normans a Seal of Wax being so apt to decay or to be lost or taken off And he observes one particular Custome of the Normans That they were wont to put some of the hair of their Heads or Beards into the Wax of their Seals I suppose rather to be kept as Monuments than as adding any strength or weight to their Charters So he observes That some of the Hair of William Earl of Warren was to his time kept in the Priory of Lewes To that of the Leaden Bull appending to the Charter of St. Augustin he makes a pitifull Answer viz. That he being deputed hither by the Pope might use the same Seal which he did at Rome And so every Legate might grant Bulls with Leaden Seals which would not be well taken at Rome But it is much more to the purpose which he adds viz. That when in the time of Henry III. this Privilege was questioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury because of this Leaden Bull the Earl of Flanders produced such another given him by a foreign Bishop which he and his Predecessours had used the Fashion whereof he sets down and the Bull it self was preserved as a Monument in St. Augustine's But if this were then so common a Custome especially at Rome why had they no such Bulls of Gregory the Great who sent Augustine To that he gives a frivolous Answer viz. That Gregory died the same year of the endowment of St. Augustine ' s. But did he leave no Successour And had it not been more to their purpose to have produced one Leaden Bull of the Pope's at that time than twenty of Augustine's the Monk But he gives no manner of answer to the Rasure of the first Charter nor to the late Writing of the second And although the using of Leaden Bulls were not so soon appropriated to the Consistorial Grants of the Bishop of Rome but Princes and Bishops might use them as Sir H. Spelman and Monsieur du Cange and Mabillon have all proved yet there ought to be better proof brought of the matter of Fact as to St. Augustine's Privilege for it is still very suspicious not onely on the account of the Leaden Bull which Polydore Virgil could not find so early used even at Rome and he allows it to be no elder than Anno Domini 772. and all the Instances brought before by Dom. Raynaldus are confessed to be suspicious by Mabillon himself but there are several things in it which in Sir H. Spelman's Judgment favour of the Norman times as the Jus consuetudinarium Iudicia intus foris and the very Title of Archbishop as it is there used was hardly of that Antiquity in the Western Church and was never given to Augustine by Gregory But according to Isidore's explication of it who was Gregory's Disciple and understood the Language of that Age Augustine could not properly call his Successours Archbishops for he saith That Title belong'd to them who had power over Metropolitans as well as other Bishops and it was not before the ninth Age as Mabillon and others observe that it came to be commonly used for a Metropolitan It was therefore a judicious Rule laid down by the Learned Authour of the Preface to the Monasticon concerning the Charters of Monks that the elder they pretend to be the more they are to be suspected For which he is deservedly praised by Papebrochius but Mabillon is very unwilling to allow it as overthrowing at once the authority of all their ancient Charters And therefore he hath endeavoured with mighty Industry to defend chiefly the old Benedictin Charters in France But he cannot deny many of them to be counterfeited Papebrochius saith almost all and at the Conclusion of his Discourse he vindicates the Monks by the commonness of the fault in elder times which is an Argument of Caution to us rather than of any credit to be given to them And it cannot be denyed that he hath laid down many usefull Rules for discerning the true and false with respect to the Customs of France But we are still as much to seek as to our pretended Charters since the Custome of making Charters cannot be made appear to be so old here as it was there He doth indeed endeavour to prove from Bede's Epistle to Egbert that in his time there were written Privileges granted to Monasteries among the Saxons and something before that among the Britains by the Synod of Landass Anno Dom. 660. But he cannot prove nor doth he attempt it that there were any Charters among the Saxons before that of Withred Anno Dom. 694. and if not all the ancient Charters referr'd to in this Charter of Ina must be false and counterfeit 2. How comes King Ina to have so great authority over all the Kings of Britain the Archbishops Bishops Dukes and Abbats as this Charter expresseth In the beginning of the Charter he mentions Baldred as one of his Vice-Roys In the middle he speaks of Baldred as one of his Predecessours and joins him with Kenewalchius Kentwin and Cedwalla But in the end he makes him to confirm what Ina has granted Ego Baldredus Rex confirmavi But who was this King Baldred In the Kingdom of Kent Edricus was in the beginning of Ina's Reign according to the Savilian Fasti and Withredus from the sixth to the end In the Kingdom of the East Saxons there were Sighardus Senfredus Ossa and Selredus In the Kingdom of East Angles Beorna and Ethelredus In the Kingdom of Mercia Adelredus Kenredus Ceolredus Athelbaldus In the Kingdom of Northumberland Alfredus Osfredus Kenredus Osricus But among all these not one Baldredus appears There was indeed one of that Name King of Kent near an hundred years after but what is that to the time of Ina But suppose Baldred then in being and onely a Vice-Roy in some part of Ina's Dominions how comes Ina to this Vniversal Monarchy or Power to command all the Kings of Britain which is expressed in the Charter Sed omnibus Regni mei Regibus c. Praecipio By what Authority did the King of the West Saxons at that time make such a Precept to all other Kings in Britain But I remember Geffrey of Monmouth makes him Grandchild to Cadwallader And the Authour of the Additions to King Edward's Laws saith he had the Kingdom of Britain with his second Wife Wala
Daughter of Cadwallader and then Ina called a Parliament for the Intermarriage of Britains and Saxons So that there was an Opinion among some that Ina had the Monarchy of Britain which Opinion was certainly follow'd by the Contriver of this Charter But Mr. Lambard confesseth that these Passages are not in the ancient MS. of King Edward's Laws and it is a wonder they should ever come into them being so destitute of any colour of authority and so remote from the design of his Laws As to these counterfeit Charters the Opinion of Papebrochius seems most probable to me that they were for the most part framed in the eleventh Century when there was Ignorance enough to make them pass and occasion enough given to the Monks to frame them for their own security against the encroachments of others upon their Lands and the Jurisdiction of Bishops over their Monasteries And William the Conquerour having given such invidious Privileges to Battell Abbey as may be seen in his Charter the elder Monasteries thought much to be so far behind them and therefore made themselves as great Privileges by the favour of Saxon Kings From hence in the next Age arose so many Contests about Jurisdiction between the Bishops and the several Monasteries of which we reade not before as we have already observed between the Abbey of St. Augustine and the Archbishop of Canterbury between the Abbey of Malmsbury and the Bishop of Salisbury and the Abbey of St. Albans and the Bishop of Lincoln And at that time those Abbies were charged with forging their Charters And when they were so charged were not able to defend them as was remarkable in the case of Saint Augustine's as it is related by William Thorn a Monk of that Abbey He confesseth the Archbishop chargeth their Privileges with Forgery and that the Monks appealed to Rome and that upon their Appeal several Commissions were granted to examine them but by his own relation they shamefully declined to produce them as long as they durst and still continued their Appeal But when they saw no remedy they produced the Charters of Ethelbert and Augustine the Copies whereof the Delegates sent to Rome But before they came thither the Pope died and the next Pope Lucius sent an Inhibition to the Archbishop requiring him not to invade their Privileges till the question of Forgery were determined and he writes to King Henry II. in the behalf of the Abbey Things being at this pass they fairly made a Composition with the Archbishop viz. That he should withdraw his Accusation of Fraud in the Court of Rome and they would yield up to him the main Points contested as to Jurisdiction The form of which Composition is at large extant in Thorn And the Confirmation of it by Henry II. in the other MS. Chronicon of that Abbey Which in effect amounted to the Monks giving up the Cause of their Charters Such a Controversie about Jurisdiction there was between Jocelin Bishop of Bath and Wells and the Abbey of Glassenbury about Anno Dom. 1215. as appears by the Book called Secretum Domini Abbatis lately in the Arundell Library but now in a private hand So that there appears a sufficient inducement for them to forge such large Immunities and Exemptions with respect to the Bishop's Jurisdiction as this Charter contains and that seems to be the main Point aimed at in it But in order to it some extraordinary matter was to be alledged in favour of this Place and nothing served so much in that Age as to amuse the People with wonderfull Stories of the Antiquity of it Calling it the Mother of Religion and the Place of Visions and Revelations and Miracles where St. Patrick and St. David dwelt in former times before ever the Saxons came but not a word yet of Joseph of Arimathea which were very plausible Pretences for extraordinary Privileges and so they are alledged in this Charter of King Ina Ita ipsa supereminentem Privilegii obtineat dignitatem nec ulli omnino hominum ancillare obsequium faciat in terris c. Which words are spoken of the Blessed Virgin but according to the Construction of that Age to be under stoo of Glassenbury Abbey because the Church was believed to be consecrated to her by our Saviour himself But it seems strange that such a Charter should ever pass for authentick with any who compare the Language of it with the History of King Ina as it is delivered by the Monkish Historians For by them it appears what Wars he had with his neighbour Princes and how far he was to the last from commanding Kings and Princes and Archbishops whose Kingdom was confined to the West and South Saxons and had but one Bishop in it till the eighteenth year of his Reign when it was divided into two Daniel having one share and Aldelm the other And some years after Eadbertus was Bishop of the South Saxons so that he had but three Bishops at the most and never an Archbishop in his Dominions How then could he call the several Kings Archbishops and Bishops together to pass this Charter The like gross absurdity there is in the Charter of Evesham Abbey wherein Brightwaldus is said to draw it up with the consent of all the Princes in England met in Council as the Pope Constantine explains it which is somewhat hard to believe concerning that Age wherein they were under no common Head but continually fighting with each other till the West Saxons prevailed And the Case of the Abbey of Evesham seems to have been much the same with that of Glassenbury For William of Malmsbury wonders how Bede came to omit the Foundation of it if it were so solemnly declared at Rome as the Charters import when Kenred and Offa were both there which is mention'd by Bede And in truth it is very strange that so diligent a Writer especially of such things as Bede was should say not a Word either of Glassenbury or Evesham But he judiciously imputes the occasion of founding this Monastery to some old Church of the Britains standing there in a desolate place which Egwin then Bishop of Worcester took a great Fancy to and so raised a Monastery there But such a plain Story as this would never doe the Monks business and therefore they must have a Legend of Egwin's Chains c. and the Vision of the Blessed Virgin there and large Immunities granted to the Place on these accounts as they have fully done in the Charters of Kenred and Offa the Bull of Constantine and the Privilege of Egwin But yet this unlucky charge of Pope Constantine to Brightwaldus to summon a Council of the whole Nation Princes and Bishops to confirm this Charter at a time when there were so many Kingdoms not onely divided but most commonly in actual War with each other makes this whole Charter appear to be an undoubted Forgery of the Monks to obtain great Privileges to themselves But to return to
from the British Arth which signifies a Bear This is an ingenious conjecture But we are not so sure there ever was such a King as Vther as we are from Gildas that there was such a one as Ambrosius But Gildas saith That some of the Race of Ambrosius were living in his time therefore he died not without issue as the British History supposes and this might probably be his Son who was slain in this Battel But what then is to be said to King Arthur who was Son to Vther and succeeded him whose mighty Feats are so amply related by the British History I think both sorts are to blame about him I mean those who tell Incredible Tales of him such as are utterly inconsistent with the Circumstances of the British Affairs at that time and those who deny there was any such Person or of any considerable power among the Britains William of Malmsbury takes notice of the British Fables about him and if I mistake not makes a severe reflexion upon Geffrey's History without naming it when he saith Hic est Arthurus de quo Britonum Nugae bodiéque delirant but he wishes a true Account had been given of him for he was the support of his Countrey for a long time who sharpned the broken Spirits of the Britains and made them Warlike But after all he will not allow him to have been Monarch in Britain but onely the General under Ambrosius And in all this William keeps close to Nennius for Nennius speaking of the Wars between the British Kings and the Saxons saith of Arthur Ipse Dux erat Bellorum although he exceeds the bounds of Truth in the next Words in omnibus Bellis Victor extitit he came off always Conquerour If this had been true the Saxons could never have kept footing in England I will allow the Saxon Annals to be partial in not recounting their Losses and on the other side it is unreasonable to suppose that the Saxons should be always beaten and yet always get ground even in Arthur's days For after the great Battel wherein Nathanleod was killed the onely British King mentioned in the Saxon Annals Cerdic's two Nephews Stuff and Witgar landed upon Cerdicshore which Matt. Westminster here places on the Western Coasts and not on the Eastern as Camden doth which seems more probable because they came with supplies to Cerdic their Uncle but all agree that as they fought upon their Landing they had the better of the Britains Huntingdon saith It was such a Victory as laid open the Countrey to them the force of the Britains being scattered God having cast them off Where was Arthur at this time Again five Years after saith Ethelwerd Cerdic and Cenric came the second time to Cerdicsford and there fought the Britains the Saxons Annals say nothing of the Victory but Florentius gives it to the Saxons and so doth Huntingdon who saith the Britains had a terrible blow that day And as an evidence of the Saxons Conquest Ethelwerd saith That year Cerdic began the Kingdom of the West Saxons From that very day saith Huntingdon Anno Dom. 519. Here Matt. Westminster is so hard put to it that taking in King Arthur at Anno Dom. 516. he is forced to leave out this Battel and to tell Geffrey's Story of King Arthur's beating the Saxons in the North about York and Lincoln and driving them as far as the Caledonian Wood and takes no notice of Kerdic's setting up a Kingdom in the West But the following Year Anno Dom. 520. he brings Colgrin Badulph and Cheldric to Totnes with new Forces with which they besieged Bath And then Arthur with his Caliborn did incredible execution for he saith he killed 840 with his own hands and so totally routed the Saxons and not a word of Kerdic or Kenric whereas Anno Dom. 528. he remembers them again and tells what a mighty Army they had in the Isle of Wight which H. Huntingdon calls Witland and what slaughter they made at Witgaresburgh which had its Name from Witgar one of Kerdic's Nephews to whom he gave the Isle of Wight and was buried at Witgar saith Huntingdon But before this there was another Battel between Kerdic and the Britains at Cerdics Leage which Huntingdon makes the same with Cerdicsford in which there was great slaughter on both sides and in that time he saith many Saxons came in out of Germany into Eastangle and Mercia but they were not yet formed into Kingdoms however innumerable Battels were fought in many places by Persons whose Names are not recorded And now Huntingdon mentions Arthur as a most valiant General on the British side who commanded in twelve Battels in all which he had the better and so reckons them up in order just as Nennius had done whom he transcribes and when he hath set down the places of the twelve Battels he confesses they were then unknown but he adds that there was almost perpetual fighting in which sometimes one side had the better and sometimes the other but still the Saxons poured in greater Numbers upon them And Nennius saith They increased here without intermission and fetched new Kings out of Germany to Rule over them And then sets down the foundation of the Northern Saxon Kingdom under Ida who govern'd all beyond Humber twelve years which was branched into two Deira and Bernicia This Kingdom began saith Huntingdon in the thirteenth year of the Reign of Kenric who succeeded Kerdic Anno Dom. 547. and Ida desceâ—ded from Woden was the first King Kenric in his eighteenth year saith the same Authour fought against the Britains who came with a powerfull Army to Salisbury where he dispersed them and made them fly But this is supposed to have hapned after Arthur's death which is placed by Matt. Westminster and others Anno Dom. 542. We must therefore look back to judge of Arthur's prowess We have already seen several Saxon Kingdoms established that of Kent of South-Saxons of West-Saxons and Saxons in other parts not yet gather'd into Kingdoms and besides these before Kendic had gained the Isle of Wight H. Huntingdon saith The Kingdom of East Saxons was founded by Erkinwin whom Slede succeeded who married the Daughter of Ermenerick King of Kent Sister of Ethelbert and Mother to Sibert the first Christian King there Now if Arthur were a King so powerfull so irresistible as the British History makes him how came all these Kingdoms to grow up under him Why did he not send the Saxons all out of Britain Nay how came Cerdic and Kenric to grow so strong in the Western parts as they did Cerdic saith William of Malmsbury came hither eight years after the death of Hengist Anno Dom. 495. He was here 24 years before he set up his Kingdom and lived in it 16 years This was in the midst of Arthur's fame and greatness If it were such as Geffrey describes would he have suffred such a terrour to the Britains to have been so near him
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
from him To this the Irish Antiquaries reply that their ancient Annals do give a clear Account of this Fergus his Race and Time of going into Scotland but although they have the Succession of the Kings of Ireland long before and the remarkable things done in their time yet there is no mention at all of any Fergus or his Successours going to settle in Britain before this time They do believe that there were Excursions made by some of the Kings of Ireland before and I see no reason to question it even before the times mentioned by Gildas but they utterly deny any foundation of a Monarchy there by Scots going out of Ireland before the time of Fergus the Son of Eric and that 100 years later than the Scotish Antiquaries do place his coming for they make the first coming of this Colony to be A. D. 503. just the time which the Bishop of St. Asaph had pitched upon but according to their Antiquities Loarn the elder Brother was first King and he dying Fergus succeeded A. D. 513. and because his Race succeeded in that Kingdom therefore Fergus is supposed to have been founder of the Monarchy The Question now comes to this whether the Irish or the Scotish Antiquaries go upon the better Grounds For here the Advocate 's Common Places of Historical Faith Common Fame Domestick Tradition c. can determine nothing since these are equal on both sides and yet there is a contradiction to each other about a matter of Fact We must then appeal to the Records on both sides and those who can produce the more Authentick Testimonies from thence are to be believed The Advocate pleads that it is very credible that they had such because they had Druids and Sanachies and Monks as well as those in Ireland and that Columba founded a Monastery at Icolmkill and their Kings were buried there for a long time But where are the Annals of that Monastery Or of any other near that time To what purpose are we told of the Monasteries that were at Scoon and Paslay and Pluscardin and Lindesfern and Abercorn unless their Books be produced It is by no means satisfactory to say they had two Books their Register or Chartulary and their Black Book wherein their Annals were kept for we desire to see them of what colour soever they be and to be convinced by Testimonies out of them if they appear of sufficient authority But if these cannot be produced let them print the full Account of Irish Kings which the Advocate in his Advertisement saith he had lately seen in a very old MS. brought from Icolmkill written by Carbre Lifachair who lived six Generations before St. Patrick and so about our Saviour's time St. Patrick died about the end of the fifth Century being above 100 years old if the Irish Historians may be believed but how six Generations will reach from his birth to about our Saviour's time is not easie to understand For although the ancients differ'd much in computing Generations yet Censorinus saith they generally called 25 or 30 years by the Name of a Generation Herodotus indeed extends a Generation to 100 years yet even that will over doe here But who was this Carbre Lifachair who wrote so long since I find one of that Name among the Kings of Ireland about A. D. 284. and therefore I am apt to suspect that some body not very well versed in the Irish Language finding this Name among the Kings made him the Authour of the Book And the Irish Antiquaries speak with some indignation against those Scotish Writers who pretend to debate these matters of Antiquity relating to the Irish Nation without any skill in the Irish Language For this Debate doth not concern the Saxons in Scotland as all the Lowlanders are still called by the Highlanders and many of the best Families of their Nobility setled there in the time of Malcolm Canmoir after he had married the Sister to Edgar but it relating wholly to those who came out of Ireland the Irish Antiquaries think it reasonable it ought to be determined by the Irish Annals But will not the same objections lie against the Irish Antiquities which have been hitherto urged against the Scotish For why should we believe that the Original Irish were more punctual and exact in their Annals than those who went from thence into Scotland I answer that a difference is to be made concerning the Irish Antiquities For they either relate to what hapned among them before Christianity was received in Ireland or after As to their remote Antiquities they might have some general Traditions preserved among them as that they were peopled from Britain and Scythia and had Successions of Kings time out of mind but as to their exact Chronology I must beg leave as yet to suspend my Assent For Bollandus affirms that the Irish had no use of Letters till Saint Patrick brought it among them at which their present Antiquary is much offended and runs back to the Druids as the learned Advocate doth But neither of them have convinced me that the Druids ever wrote Annals All that Caesar saith is that in Gaul they made use of the Greek Letters which they might easily borrow from the Greek Colony at Marseilles but how doth it appear that they used these Letters in Ireland or Scotland Or that they any where used them in any matters of Learning which seems contrary to the Institution of the Druids who were all for Memory as Caesar saith and thought Books hurtfull to the use of it So that nothing could be more repugnant to their Discipline than the 150 Tracts of the Druids which St. Patrick is said to have cast into the Fire But I do not deny that they might have Genealogies kept up among them by their Druids and Sanachies and Bards who made it their business and so it was in Scotland as appears by the Highlanders repeating the Genealogy of Alexander III. by heart But the great Errour lay in fixing Times and Places and particular Actions according to the Names of those Genealogies And this was the true Reason of the mistake as to the Scotish Antiquities For the Genealogists carrying the Pedigree of Fergus the Son of Erk so much farther back some afterwards either imagined themselves or would have others think that all those mentioned before him were Kings in Scotland as Fergus was which by degrees was improved into a formal Story of forty Kings And I am very much confirmed in this conjecture because I find in the Genealogy in Fordon the descent of Fergus the Son of Erk from Conar the Irish Monarch as it is in the Irish Genealogies and that by Rieda called by them Carbre Riada by the other Eochoid Ried and several other Names are the very same we now find in the Genealogy of the Irish Kings as Eochoid Father to Erc Aengus Fedlim Conar the Son of Ederskeol and so up to Fergus
saying that Scotia had its Name from Scota the most noble Person in that Colony he saith it was in some Chronica but what Chronica was ever written by Grosthead deserves to be enquired For it is certain Fordon quotes him in other Places about Scota and the Scots Which makes me wonder that Dempster doth not put him among his Scotish Writers but as far as I can perceive he never read Fordon nor saw Elphinston In Chap. 20. where Fordon quotes an old Chronicle which affirms that Gaithelus gave the same Laws to his People which Phoroneus did to the Greeks and that the Scots to this day glory that they have those Laws this last Clause Elphinstoun left out and he passes over Chap. 21. where the miserable condition of the Posterity of Gathelus in Spain for 240 years is set down In some following Chapters he confutes Geoffrey of Monmouth in the very words of Fordon and uses his very expressions about the first peopling of Scotland from Ireland the coming of the Picts and the hard usage of the Scots by them and Fergus his going over out of Ireland in all which not one Authority is cited which is not in Fordon and not the least intimation of any such Authour as Veremundus In the second Book he follows Fordon not onely in other things before but when he describes the Islands of Scotland and particularly Jona onely he leaves out Fordon's Hebrew Etymology making Iona and Columba the same and he saith not one word of any Library or Records kept there or any old Histories and Annals to be there found as Hector Boethius affirms all that he saith is that there was a Sanctuary for Transgressours About Fergus and Rether he varies not a tittle from Fordon and never mentions any other Kings of that Race which he would never have omitted if he had known such an Authour as Veremundus And he doth not suppose that Rether succeeded Fergus in the Kingdom of Scotland but that he came afresh from Ireland and so makes this the second coming of the Scots out of Ireland Which plainly overthrows the constant Succession of the Monarchy from Fergus in Scotland And he names no one King of Scotland from Rether to Eugenius who was banished with all the Scots In the beginning of the third Book he gives an account after Fordon of Fergus the Son of Erk coming into Scotland and he reckons 45 Kings between the two Fergusses just as Fordon doth and he desires to be excused as he did for not setting down distinctly the times of their several Reigns because he could not then find any Writings about them his words are ad praesens non in Scriptis reperimus Now from this expression I thus argue against Hector Boethius his Veremundus He saith that Elphinstoun gave the first intimation of him and that followed him in his History either therefore Veremundus gave no account of this first Succession which Hector pretends to have from him and so his Authority signifies nothing at all in this matter or Elphinston never saw him for he saith he never could find any History of this first Succession And therefore if ever there were such a Book under the Name of Veremundus it was after Elphinston's days For having searched the whole Nation for ancient Writings and particularly Jona as Hector testifies and finding no History of the Succession from Fergus as himself declares it is a plain Evidence that Hector Boethius hath given a false account of Elphinston in relation to Veremundus and in all probability of Veremundus too But this is not all for Elphinston doth not onely say that he could not find any Books relating to the Succession of the Kings from Fergus but he refers his Readers to the old Irish Annals his Words are ad antiquos Hiberniae Libros referimus So that according to Elphinston's judgment the most certain account of their Antiquities is to be taken from the Irish Authours And so we may observe both in him and Fordon the Irish Legends of S. Brendan and others served them for very good Authorities And so much for the Advocate 's ancient Historian Veremundus the Spaniard For I suppose the mention of him by Bale Gesner Hollinshed c. after he was so much celebrated by Hector Boethius deserves no farther consideration But Vossius did not think him worth mentioning and although he blames Luddus as the Advocate calls him or Humphry Lhuyd for being too severe upon Hector Boethius yet it is evident that he looked on him as a fabulous Writer and so durst not set him down on his authority The Advocate would excuse this Censure of Vossius as though it related onely to his credulity in point of miracles whereas there is not the least intimation that way and Vossius saith that Leland on the account of his fabulousness wrote sharp Verses upon him What! for his having believed too many Miracles No certainly but for his fabulous Antiquities But he hopes to bring Hector Boethius better off from the Censure of Bishop Gavin Dowglas which the Bishop of St. Asaph takes notice of from Polydore Virgil because Bishop Dowglas died A. D. 1520. and Boethius his History was not published till 1526. and he had not his Records from Icolmkill till 1525. To which I answer that this looks like one of the Miracles the Advocate confesses that Hector did too easily report For if he had the Records on which this History was built but in 1525. how came his History to be published the following year For he makes use of Veremundus his Authority in the very beginning of his History for the Scotish Antiquities both in Spain Ireland and Albany In his second Book he saith whatever he had written of the ancient Kings of Scotland he had taken out of Veremundus Campbell and Cornelius Hibernicus all which he pretended to have had from Icolmkill In his third Book about Caesar's Expedition he still pretends to follow Veremundus And in his seventh Book he declares he had kept close to him in the whole series of his History Now how was this possible if he had never seen Veremundus till A. D. 1525. and his History was published by Badius Ascensius at Paris A. D. 1526. It would take up that year in sending it thither and revising and correcting and publishing so large a Volume as his History makes So that there must be some great mistake as to the year of his receiving those Records if he ever did But if this were not the History Bishop Dowglas censured what other was there at that time which could deserve it It could not be Joh. Major for his Book was printed by Badius Ascensius after Dowglas his death if he died as he saith A. D. 1520. and he pretends to no new Discoveries as Boethius doth But why should the Advocate imagine his History was not known by the learned Men at home such as Bishop Dowglas was before it was
quotes Ger. Vossius de Hist. Lat. who saith onely that Bale mentions a piece of his de Antiquitate Avalonica but he adds that Bale deserves no credit in Writers of great Antiquity But the person Cressy means or at least his Authour was another Gerard Vossius Dean of Tongres who published part of this pretended piece of St. Patrick among other ancient Writings which will have no great authority among considering men if they have no other Characters of Antiquity than this Charter of Saint Patrick However Mr. Cressy is pleased to call it a monument of the goodness of God towards this Nation so early in the very beginning of Christianity because therein mention is made of some Writings of St. Phaganus and Diruvianus wherein was declared that twelve Disciples of the Holy Apostles Philip and Jacob built the said ancient Church to the honour of the Blessed Virgin by the appointment of the Archangel Gabriel And moreover That our Lord himself from Heaven dedicated the said Church to the honour of his Mother As likewise That three Pagan Kings bestowed upon them twelve Portions of Land If this hold good it goes a great way towards the proving the ancient Tradition although Joseph of Arimathea be not mentioned But St. Patrick goes on and saith That in other Writings of a later date he found that Phaganus and Diruvianus obtained from Pope Eleutherius thirty years of Indulgence as himself likewise procured from Pope Celestine twelve years And towards the Conclusion he grants a hundred days of Indulgence to those who would clear the way to a certain Oratory there mention'd And to make all plain it begins with the Date Anno Dom. 425. in these Words In the Name of our Lord Iesus Christ. I Patrick the poor humble Servant of God in the four hundred twenty fifth year of the Incarnation of our Lord being sent by the most holy Pope Celestine into Ireland c. I confess this Charter offers very fair play towards the discovery of it's own Forgery by such open Marks and Characters as these For it is certainly known that in St. Patrick's time no such way of Computation was used from the year of our Lord. For Dionysius Exiguus writ his first Epistle to Petronius Anno Dom. 525. where he first mentions The reducing the Cycle to the years of Christ's Incarnation that People might be better acquainted with it after which it remained a great while in private use with the Paschal Cycle and was not publickly received saith Bucherius till about the time of Charles the Great Joachim Vadianus saith He never saw the Year of our Lord in any ancient Charters of which sort he had seen many Some observe That it was never used in Charters before the ninth Age and therefore the more subtile Pretenders to Antiquity always left it out Joh. Aventinus affirms that the use of it in Epistles and Charters was brought in by Carolus Crassus with whom Nic. Vignier agrees as to the Imperial Diplomata But it seems probable to have been brought into England before that time for in the Council at Celichyth Anno Dom. 816. Every Bishop was required to take an Account of the year of our Lord. And by some Charters in Ingulphus it appears to have been used here before it was used in France or the Empire but not long before the eighth Century and the first publick Acts we find it applied to were those of Councils as in that of Becanceld under King Withred Anno Dom. 694. But the same King doth not use it in the Years of his Reign The like Instances about Councils especially in the eighth and ninth Centuries are produced by Mabillon Who thinks That Bede was the first who brought it into the use of History But that could not be before Anno Dom. 725. at which time he began to write his History and he adds That from him by the means of Boniface it came into the use of the French Councils and Histories and at last of all publick Charters both in France and the Empire as well as here But from all this it appears that there is no Colour for this Charter of St. Patrick which reckons from the Incarnation a hundred years before Dionysius Exiguus first introduced that way of Computation Besides it cannot possibly agree with the time of St. Patrick's going first into Ireland for William of Malmsbury confesseth He was made Bishop by Celestine and sent by St. German into Ireland as an Apostle But it is on all hands agreed that Palladius was sent thither before him and Prosper who lived at that time fixeth the sending Palladius to the year wherein Bassus and Antiochus were Consuls which was Anno Dom. 431. The year of the first Ephesine Council So that this Charter of St. Patrick cannot be true no not although we allow the different Computation in Capgrave who reads it 430. But Alford Confesses both Malmsbury and the Glassenbury Antiquities have it 425. It is strange that Alford should say He found no Exception against the Credit of this Charter since even Capgrave himself mentions it not without doubt and Suspicion of the truth of it And his own Brethren Henschenius and Papebrochius deride his simplicity for believing it And among other Arguments they produce that of the mention of Indulgences against it which Name they Confess was not used for the Relaxation of Penance till the eleventh Century a very Competent time after the Date of this Charter The question is not as Mr. Cressy would put it Whether every Bishop or the Pope as Chief hath a Power to relax Penance But Whether the Name of Indulgences were then applied to such a Sense as this Charter uses it Which those learned Jesuites deny Add to all this that St. Patrick saith He obtained from Celestine twelve years of Indulgence which being understood of Glassenbury implies a plain impossibility For St. Patrick is said to retreat thither towards the end of his Life and Celestine dyed soon after his first sending into Ireland So that I need not to insist on the Style or the Names contained in this Charter to prove the Forgery of it it being so manifest by the Arguments already produced I now proceed to the Charters whereof there are several extant in the Monasticon The large Charter of King Ina seems to be most considerable and to favour the old Tradition as it makes the Church at Glassenbury dedicated to Christ and the Blessed Virgin to be the Fountain of all Religion and the first in the Kingdom of Britain But upon a strict enquiry into the Circumstances of this Charter I see great reason to call in question the Truth of it and not merely from the dissimilitude of Style between this and other Charters of the Saxon times which are allowed to be Authentick such as those in Ingulphus William of Malmsbury the Additions to Matthew Paris c. But for these
examin'd Several Testimonies of Origen concerning the British Churches in his time The different Traditions about King Lucius The State of the Roman Province here overthrows his being King over all Britain Great probability there was such a King in some part of it and then converted to Christianity A Conjecture proposed in what part of Britain he reigned The most probable means of his Conversion and the Story cleared from Monkish Fables Of Dioclesian's Persecution in Britain and the stopping of it by the means of Constantius The flourishing of the British Churches under Constantine The reason onely of three British Bishops present at the Council of Arles The great Antiquity of Episcopal Government here Of the Flamines and Archiflamines of Geffrey of Monmouth how far agreeable to the Roman Constitution Maximinus set up a Pagan Hierarchy in imitation of the Christian. The Canons of the Council of Arles not sent to the Pope to confirm but to publish them HAving shew'd the great probability of the planting a Christian Church here in the Apostles time and that by St. Paul I am now to consider the Succession of this Church of which we have undoubted Evidence from the unquestionable Testimonies of Tertullian and Origen who mention it as a thing so very well known That they use it as an Argument against the Jews to prove Christ to have been the promised Messias because the uttermost parts of the Earth were given for his Possession Tertullian flourished as St. Jerome saith under Severus and his Son And in the time of Severus he wrote against the Jews as Baronius proves from several Passages in that Book In his time the Affairs of Britain were very well understood in other parts of the Roman Empire especially by Men so learned and inquisitive as Tertullian For Clodius Albinus having set up for the Empire in Britain and being beaten by Severus near Lyons he took care to secure this Province by sending Virius Lupus his Lieutenant hither But things growing troublesome here Severus himself undertook an Expedition hither and brought the Britains to such Terms That they were contented to live beyond the Wall which Severus built where Hadrian's Wall had been before The part of Britain beyond the Wall was called Caledonia as Dio saith And it is apparent that the Romans were at that time fully acquainted with the Condition of the Britains both within the Province and without And therefore Tertullian cannot be supposed to speak at random about this matter when he mentions the Nations of Gaul and the Britains with as much assurance as he doth his Countreymen the Moors for receiving Christianity And saith The Kingdom of Christ was advanced among them and that Christ was solemnly worshipped by them Tertullian was a man of too much understanding to expose himself to the contempt of the Jews by mentioning this as a thing so well known at that time if the Britains were then known to be no Christians Or if they had been such and were returned to Barbarism the Argument would have been stronger against him When therefore such a Passage doth not fall by chance from such a Writer but the force of an Argument depends upon it it is of so much greater weight How ridiculous would it appear for a man to prove that Popery is the Catholick Religion by instancing not onely in Italy and Spain as the Nations where it is universally received but in Great Britain and Denmark and Sweden No less was the absurdity then to prove Christ's universal Kingdom by enumerating Gaul and Britain with other Nations where Christ was worshipped if there were no Christian Churches at that time in being among them But there are two Objections against this Passage of Tertullian which must be removed 1. That he speaks of that part of Britain which was not under the Roman Power and the Conversion of it is said to be later than to be here mention'd by Tertullian For Joh. Fordon and Joh. Maior from an ancient Distick in both of them Christi transactis tribus annis atque ducentis Scotia Catholicam coepit inire Fidem say That the Christian Religion was received in Scotland in A. D. 203. about the seventh of Severus But this was so little a time before Tertullian's Writing that it could hardly be so well known in Africa as to afford strength to an Argument against the Jews To which I answer That it is true Tertullian doth add the greater Emphasis to his Argument by saying Et Britannorum inaccessa Romanis loca Christo vero subdita The Gospel had access to those parts of Britain whither the Romans had none Which doth prove that Christianity was then received beyond the Wall but not by the Scots who were not yet settled in those parts But by the old Britains who were driven thither as appears by the Account given by Xiphilin out of Dio who saith that the Britains were divided into two sorts the Maeatae and the Caledonii The former dwelt by the Wall and the latter beyond them These were the Extraprovincial Britains and were distinct both from the Picts and the Scots saith Joh. Fordon who carefully distinguisheth these three Nations when he speaks of their Wars with the Romans And he makes Fulgentius the Head of the Britains of Albany in the time of Severus But he supposes both the Scots and Picts to have been in the Northern parts long before and that the Scots received the Christian Faith in the time of Severus Victor being then Bishop of Rome who succeeded Eleutherius To whom saith Hector Boethius King Donald sent Embassadours to desire him to send Persons fit to instruct them in the Christian Faith And upon this saith he it was generally received in Scotland Dempster according to his custome is very warm in this matter and saith all their Annals and Histories agree that King Donald and the whole Kingdom of Scotland did then embrace Christianity And is angry with Baronius for putting off their Conversion to the time of Palladius But notwithstanding all his boasting of the consent of Annals and Histories the Scotichronicon is the onely Authority he hath to produce And in his Preface he saith That King Edward I. destroy'd all the Monuments of the Kingdom and it is somewhat unreasonable to complain of the want and to alledge the consent of them at the same time And besides he produceth something out of Fordon concerning Paschasius of Sicily being sent by Victor into Scotland and returning with a Message from King Donald which is not to be found in Fordon But as Baronius observes It is strange that so remarkable a Conversion should be ommitted not onely by Bede but by Marianus Scotus who mentions the Mission of Palladius And Prosper saith Vpon the Mission of Palladius who was made the first Bishop over the Scotish Christians the People who were barbarous before were made Christians But it is urged by Dempster not without
Person in this Island or that he had Royal Authority in some part of it or that he was converted to Christianity at that time or that the Christian Church here flourished by his means That there was such a Person who was a King and a Christian is proved besides the concurrence of so many Authours from Bede's time from the two Coins mention'd by Archbishop Vsher one Silver and the other Gold having an Image of a King on them with a Cross and the Letters of LVC as far as they could be discerned But if it be farther asked in what part of Britain this King Lucius lived I shall onely propose my Conjecture and leave it to the Judgment of others It is well known that the Romans were so well satisfied with the fidelity of Cogidunus that they bestow'd some Cities upon him And Tacitus saith he continued firm to the Roman Interest to his time And where Kings were faithfull to them the Romans were kind to their Posterity and kept them up in the same dignity as long as they behaved themselves as they expected from them Of this we have a clear instance in Herod's Posterity For Archelaus Herodes Antipas and Philip his Sons succeeded into their shares of his Kingdom Then Herod Agrippa his Grandchild by Aristobulus was made King by Caius Caligula whose Government was inlarged by Claudius and his Brother Herod had the Kingdom of Chalcis given him Sometime after his Father's death Claudius bestow'd first the Kingdom of Chalcis upon his Son Agrippa then the Tetrarchy of Philip which was inlarged afterwards by Nero and he continued till the War and was the last King over the Jews Now from hence we observe That the Romans thought it no ill policy in some Cases to continue the same Royal dignity to the Children of those who deserved so well of them as Cogidunus had done And it seems most probable to me that where Ptolemy places the Regni were the Cities which Cogidunus had the rule over not from the Name but from the Circumstances of those places which have fewer Roman Monuments or Towns than any other in Britain and therefore were most likely still under their own Prince who kept up the British customs Whereever the Romans inhabited they may be traced by their Ways by their Buildings by their Coins by their Urns by their Inscriptions But scarce any thing of this nature could be found in Surry or Sussex by the most diligent Enquirers Leland indeed discover'd some Roman Coins near Kingston upon Thames where others have been taken up since but Camden could hear of no Roman Antiquities thereabouts And some suppose the place where those Coins were taken up to have been a Station of the Roman Souldiers under Asclepiodotus when he marched that way from Portsmouth to London in the Expedition against Allectus If so it was too late for the days of King Lucius All that Camden pretends to is onely a Military way near Ockley which was necessary for the conveniency of the Roman Souldiers passing to the remoter parts of the Province and some Coins about Gatton but as to his Noviomagus which he will have to be Woodcote in Surrey Mr. Somner hath well proved from the course of the Roman Itinerary that it must lie in Kent in the Road to Portus Rutupis and Woodcote is as far from it as London In all Sussex there is no remainder of any Roman Building or Way or Colony or Coins yet discovered to the World except towards the Sea side which the Romans kept to themselves In Antoninus Pius his time Seius Saturnius was Archigubernus in Classe Britannica Which shews that the Romans had then a Fleet here and that he was Admiral of it And in after-times the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam had several Garrisons on the Sea side for Security of the Coasts as appears by the Notitia Imperii where the Places are set down among which two were on the coasts of Sussex Anderida and Portus Adurni By the former our learned Antiquaries Camden and Selden understand Newenden in Kent but that stands too much within Land Mr. Somner in a MS. discourse of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent rather thinks it to be Pemsey in Sussex or Hastings as more agreeing with Gildas who saith that the Romans placed their Forts for Security of the Coasts in litore Oceani ad Meridionalem Plagam upon the very Coasts And so the rest of them stood as Reculver Richborough Dover Lim which were all in Kent and the Portus Adurni was Aldrington near Shoreham in Sussex From hence it appears that the Romans being secure of the Coasts and having their Souldiers dispersed in the Colonies about and being so near the Metropolis at London where the chief Governours of this part of Britain resided They might better permit a British King to govern these parts of the Countrey And this is the most probable account I can think of as to this King Lucius within the Roman Province Sir H. Spelman would bring him to his Iceni but without any colour of Probability Lucius saith he was the son of Coilus Coilus of Marius Marius of Arviragus And what then Some he saith would have him to be Prasutagus who was King over the Iceni But doth not Tacitus say that Prasutagus died before the Revolt of the Britains under Boadicea And that he left Nero his heir and his two Daughters hoping thereby to secure his Kingdom If he were Arviragus he was dead before the Revolt of the Iceni And if Marius were his Son how comes he never to be mention'd in the Story afterwards no not in that most remarkable Battel between his Mother and Suetonius Paulinus But Hector Boethius calls Arviragus one of the Iceni as though his authority were to be mention'd against Tacitus who was the Geffrey of Scotland so many and so improbable are his Fictions Baronius after trying several ways to reconcile the Tradition of King Lucius with the Roman Story concludes with that as the most probable That he was a King under the Roman Power in Britain such as Prasutagus was But he was onely King over the Iceni and not over all Britain and although among the Britains there were many Kings over particular Cities as they then called the People under one Government yet there was no one King over the whole Island But in Cases of great difficulty they pitched upon one as Supreme as on Cassibelan upon the Invasion of Caesar So that the old British Government was neither Popular as some pretend nor under one Monarchy but the People were govern'd by several petty Monarchs as appears by the unquestionable Testimonies of Diodorus Siculus Strabo and Pomponius Mela Fert populos Reges populorum saith Mela Olim Regibus parebant saith Tacitus which prove both the Antiquity and Number of British Monarchs And what Dio saith of a Democratical Government
Dom. 215. however long enough before the time of Fergus According to this supposition that part of Scotland called Dalrieta or Dalreuda the bounds whereof are described by the Learned Primate was inhabited long before the coming of Fergus and so agrees with what Bede saith That the Scots came first out of Ireland under the conduct of Reuda and either by Force or Friendship found habitations for themselves there which they still enjoy'd and from their Leader to this time they were called Dalreudim Daal signifying a share in their Language This Reuda seems to be the same with Cairbre Riada the third Son of Conair And if Fergus were descended from the same Conair it gives a probable Account of Fergus his coming afterwards into those Parts and taking the Government upon him For Keting saith That Eochac Mumreamhar of the Progeny of Cairbre Redhfadac or Riada had two Sons Earcha and Elchon And from the former the Families of Dal Riada in Scotland are descended from the latter those of Dal Riada in Ulster Which must be understood of that part of the Vlster Dal riadans which Fergus carried with him For there were the Descendents from Riada in Scotland before according to the former account But the whole matter about the Reign of Fergus remains still very obscure For 1. It seems strange that Bede takes no notice at all of him which in all probability he would have done as well as of Reuda who was less considerable 2. Jocelin in the Life of St. Patrick saith That Fergus was one of the twelve Sons of the King of Dalredia and was excluded from his share by his Brethren of whom St. Patrick prophesied That from him Kings should rise who should not onely reign at home but in a foreign Countrey After which saith he Fergus in no long time came to be King in his own Countrey And from him sprang Eanus who subdued Albany and other Islands and whose Posterity still reigns there So that if Jocelin's authority be good Fergus himself never came into Scotland But the mistake arose because he was King in Dalrieda Which the Scots understood of their own and thought they had Reason because the Posterity of Fergus reigned there 3. Giraldus Cambrensis who had a Sight of the Irish Annals never mentions Fergus but onely saith That in the time of Nellus the Monarch of Ireland six Sons of Mured King of Ulster sailed into the Northern Parts of Britain and there planted themselves from whom the Scotish Nation is derived This Nellus whom the Irish call Niall the Great was killed saith Gratianus Lucius Anno Dom. 403. And if the Sons of the King of Vlster came then over to plant and settle in Scotland this must be 100 years before the time of Fergus and consequently he could be none of that Number And yet the Irish Annalists make the two Fergusses the two Aengusses and the two Loarns to be the six Sons of Muriedhach King of Ulster who came over to settle in Scotland But if Giraldus his Authority be allow'd the Scots came not to settle in Britain till the beginning of the fifth Century And the Monarchy in the Posterity of Fergus according to Jocelin could not be till towards the middle of the sixth Century And if Edan King of the Scots in Bede's History be the same with that Edan in Jocelin who descended from Fergus Then the Scotish Kingdom did not begin till the seventh Century as appears by Bede But in matters of so much Obscurity I determine nothing But it is but Justice to consider on the other side what the Scotish Antiquaries do now plead for themselves to prove that they inhabited Scotland long before this time First They say Bede mentions them as ancient Inhabitants of this Island before the coming of the Romans and describes the War 's between the Picts Scots and Britains before that of the Romans It is very true that Bede in the beginning of his History doth set down the several Nations which inhabited Britain and he names five English Britains Scots Picts and Romans And among these he reckons the Britains first then the Picts after them the Scots from Ireland under Reuda and then adds That Ireland was the true Countrey of the Scots who coming hither made a third Nation in Britain besides the Britains and Picts and landed on the North part of the Frith towards Ireland and there settled themselves But Bede saith nothing at all of the time when the Scots came first from Ireland and it is of no force that he reckons them here before the War with the Romans for so he doth the English as well as the Scots his business being to give an Account of the present Inhabitants and not merely of the Ancient Haec in praesenti 5 Gentium linguis c. But where doth Bede say that the Scots were in Britain before the Romans coming hither I cannot find so much as an Intimation that way unless it be in the Title of the Chapter Of the Situation of Britain and Ireland and their ancient Inhabitants And doth not Bede speak of the Britains as the ancient Inhabitants of this Island and the Scots of Ireland But if all mention'd must be ancient Inhabitants then so must the English and Romans be as well as the Picts and Scots Well! But doth not Bede afterwards say That Severus his Wall was built against the unconquer'd Nations beyond it I grant it if he had said the Scots and Picts beyond it the Controversie had been ended But doth not Dio explain Bede who expresly tells us these Nations were the Maeatae and the Caledonii Why not the Picts and the Scots if then in Britain The latter Roman Writers never forbear calling them by their own Names when they knew them to be here as appears by Eumenius Claudian and Ammianus Marcellinus but to say the Scots were called Maeatae because they came from the Palus Maeotis will hardly go down in this Age. However it is confidently affirmed the Caledonii were the Scots Let this one thing be well proved and I will yield the Scots were in Britain long before Severus his time for Tacitus mentions the Caledonians But it is to no more purpose to quote modern Writers who call the Caledonians Scots than Lipsius his calling Galgacus a Scotish King for we are not bound to follow any modern Writers in their Improprieties There is no Question the Caledonians were known to Flaccus and Martial who certainly lived not in Augustus his time unless that Name be very improperly given by it self to Domitian or Trajan But do any of these Roman Authours ever tell us the Caledonians were Scots If not to what end are the Caledonians so much spoken of As far as we can find by Tacitus or Dio or any others they were the Northern Britains And if Tacitus had known that they came out of Ireland and were a distinct Nation he was so diligent and
them as the Natives being not trained up to Martial Discipline but depending wholly on the Roman Legions for their Defence and security thence whatever People had the Courage to invade did usually take possession of the Countrey where the Roman Legions were at a distance or otherwise engaged against each other Thus in France the Goths the Burgundians the Franks and the Britains took possession of the several parts they attempted and the Goths and Vandals in Spain So Goths and Lombards in Italy it self So that it is not to be wondred if the Saxons prevailed here at last but with as much difficulty and after as many Battels as were fought by any People of that time without foreign Assistence But to return to the Aremorican Britains whether they came over under Rioval in the beginning of the distractions here when the People were so Rebellious against their Princes as Gildas relates or whether they went over to assist Constantine and his Son and so remained there I shall not determin But that the Britains were well settled there before Sampson Archbishop of York and his Company passed the Seas appears by what Mat. Paris saith That they went to their fellow Citizens and Countrey Men hoping to live more quietly there And after the death of the Bishop of Dole he was by the consent of the Britains put into his Place and from thence forwards exercised his Archiepiscopal power there the Kings of that Province not suffering his Successours there to pay any Obedience to the Archbishop of Tours Which begot a Suit which held 300 years in the Court of Rome and was this year manfully decided by Innocent III. as Mat. Paris there relates Who states the Case very unskilfully laying the weight of it upon the Archbishop's bringing over his Pall from York which the Pope had given him there Suppose this were true although the Popes gave no Palls then nor a great while after yet this were no reason to contest it in the Court of Rome so long together But the difficulty of the Case lay upon another point viz. according to the Old Canon of the Church If a Province were divided into two each Province was to have a Metropolitan Now this Reason held much stronger when new Kingdoms were erected out of the Roman Provinces For what Reason was there why the Bishop of Dole in the Kingdom of Bretagn should yield subjection to the Bishop of Tours in a distinct Kingdom and there was the fairer Colour for this when one actually an Archbishop before came to be settled there and from hence they insisted on a Prescription of a very long time wherein no Subjection had been made to the Bishop of Tours as appears by the account given of this Cause by Innocent III. in his Epistles lately published by Baluzius On the other side it was pleaded that all Britanny was under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tours but that the Britains conspiring against the King of France and setting up a Kingdom of their own they made use of Sampson Archbishop of York coming to establish a Metropolitan power within that Kingdom and upon Complaint made to Rome the Popes had put it upon this issue whether any of their Predecessors had granted the Pall to the Bishop of Dole which not being proved the Pope as it was easie to imagine gave Sentence against the Bishop of Dole But it is certain that they went upon a false suggestion viz. That the Kingdom of Bretagn was set up in Rebellion to the Kingdom of France For Childeric had not extended his Dominions in France as far as the Loir and before his time the Britains were in quiet possession of those parts of Aremorica and the best French Historians now grant that the Britains came thither in the time of Merovée who obtained but little in Gaul as Hadrianus Valesius confesseth And the Authour of the Life of Gildas observes That the Power of the Kings of France was very inconsiderable in the time of Childeric Son of Merovée at what time Gildas went over into Aremorica as his School-fellows under Iltutus Sampson and Paulus had done before him whereof one succeeded the other Sampson at Dole and the other was made Bishop of the Oxismii the most Northern People of Bretagn which Diocese is since divided into Three Treguier S. Pol de Leon and S. Brieu Here Gildas at the request of his Brethren who came out of Britain saith the Authour of his Life wrote his Epistle wherein he so sharply reproves the several Vices of the five Kings of Britain whom he calls by the Names of Constantine Aurelius Vortiporius Cuneglasus and Maglocunus and speaks to them all as then living The British History makes them to succeed each other Constantine according to that was killed in his third year by Aurelius Conanus He died in his second year and Vortiporius succeeding him Reigned four years After him he places Malgo and leaves Cuneglasus wholly out But that they Reigned at the same time in several parts of Britain is evident from Gildas because he saith He knew that Constantine was then living Now Constantine Reigning the first of these how could he speak to the four Kings that succeeded him if he were still living For there is no colour for imagining that Gildas still added his Reproof as one died and another succeeded for any one may discern it was written in one continued style and he writes to them all as then living without the least intimation that they succeeded each other Besides he calls Constantine the Issue of the impure Damnonian Lioness and at this time the Britains in the remote Western parts were separated from the other by the West Saxon Kingdom and therefore there is far less Probability that all the Britains at that time should be under one Monarch And where they had greatest freedom of living together they were divided into several Principalities For he whom Gildas calls Maglocunus is by the British Writers called Maelgun Guineth and Mailgunus mentioned by John of Tinmouth in the Life of St. Paternus and by Thaliessin in Sir John Price from whom it appears that he was King of North-Wales And as Gildas calls Vortiporius the Tyrant of the Demetae by whom the Inhabitants of South-Wales are understood Aurelius Conanus Archbishop Vsher thinks was King of Powisland which was sometime a third Kingdom And for Cuneglasus it seems probable he had the Command of the Northern Britains for it is plain from Bede they had a distinct Principality there All these Gildas doth very severely reprove for their several Vices and then taxes the Judges and Clergy to the Conclusion of his Epistle to the end they might repent of their Sins and acquit the just and wise Providence of God in the judgments he brought upon them which were very terrible and ended in the desolation of the Countrey and the ruine of the British Churches excepting onely those Remnants which were
the County of Longford which he deduces to Anno Domini 1405. The Annals of Vlster by one Maguir Canon of Armach deduced to his own time who died An. Dom. 1498. And the Annals of Dungall composed by four modern Authours out of all their former Annals But among all these there is nothing pretending to Antiquity but the Psalter of Cashel and Tigernacus yet the Psalter of Cashel falls short of the time of Nennius for Cormach King of Munster the supposed Authour of it lived after the beginning of the tenth Century being killed by Flanmhac Siona called Flannus Siuna by Gratianus Lucius who died An. Dom. 914. or as Sir James Ware thinks An. Dom. 916. And for Tigernacus his Annals the four Magistri as Colgunus calls them or the Annals of Dungall are positive that Tigernacus ô Braion the Authour of them died in the eleventh Century An. Dom. 1088. There remains onely the Psaltuir Na-Ran written by Aonghais Ceile de or by Aengusius one of the Culdees who lived in the latter end of the eighth Century as the same Irish Antiquary confesses who withall saith That all the Works contained therein relate onely to Matters of Piety and Devotion which therefore can signifie nothing to our purpose So that nothing appears of the Irish Antiquities which can pretend to be written before the Danish Invasion And although we are told that these Annals were taken out of others more ancient yet we have barely their Word for it for those ancient Annals whatever they were are irrecoverably lost So that there can be no comparison of one with the other And how can they be so certain of the exactness used in the Parliament of Tarach to preserve their Annals if there be no ancient Annals to preserve the Memory of the Proceedings at that time It was a very extraordinary Care for the Estates of the whole Nation to preserve their Annals if we could be assured of it Which doth much exceed the Library of Antiquities which Suffridus Petrus speaks of set up as he saith by Friso the Founder of the Frisians at Stavera near the Temple of Stavo in which not onely the ancient Records were preserved from time to time But the Pictures of the several Princes with the times of their Reigns from An. 313. before Christ 's coming to Charlemagns time The like whereof he saith no German Nation can boast of But yet methinks the Posterity of Gathelus exceeds that of Friso's in the Care of Preserving their Antiquities For the Wisedom of the whole Nation was concerned in it But I never read of any who ever saw this Library of Antiquities at Stavera but we must believe Cappidus Staverensis and Occa Scarlensis as to these things And that they saw the Records as Hector did Veremundus although none else ever did But as to this Parliament of Tarach which was carefull to preserve the Irish Antiquities Whence have we this Information Are the Acts of that Assembly preserved Are any Copies of those Annals still in being Yes we are told that the keeping of the Original Book was entrusted by the Estates to the Prelates and those Prelates for its perpetual Preservation caused several authentick Copies of it to be fairly engrossed whereof some are extant to this day and several more faithfully transcribed out of them their Names being the Book of Ardmach the Psalter of Cashel c. It seems then these are the Transcripts of the Original Authentick Book allowed by all the Estates of the Kingdom But the Book of Ardmach is a late thing being the same with the Annals of Vlster composed by a Canon of Armach So that the whole rests upon the Psalter of Cashel which must be composed 500 years after the meeting of that famous Assembly For St. Patrick was one of the number and it was done in the time of Laogirius or Leogarius King of Ireland who died saith Gratianus Lucius An. Dom. 458. But King Cormach lived in the tenth Century And therefore an account must be given how this Original Book or Authentick Copies were preserved for that 500 years and more in the miserable Condition that Nation was in a great part of that time So that the Difference is not so great between the Authority of Geffrey of Monmouth and these Annals as is pretended For I see no Reason why the Story of Brutus should be thought more incredible than that of Ciocal Bartholanus and Nemedus with his Son Briotan that gave the name to Britain And especially the Story of Gathelus himself his Marriage in Egypt to Scota coming to Spain and thence his Posterity to Ireland which seems to me to be made in imitation of Geffrey's Brutus For Brutus married Pandrasus his Daughter the King of Greece and then was forced to seek his Fortune at Sea and passing by Mauritania just as Gathelus did the one landed in Gaul and came for Albion And the other in Spain and sent his Son for Ireland And I wonder to find Brutus his Giants in Albion of so much larger Proportions than the Giants in Ireland who are said not to exceed the tallest growth of Men For I had thought Giants had been Giants in all Parts of the World Suppose some Learned Men have question'd Whether there were such a person as Brute I should think it no more Heresie than to call in question Whether there were such Persons as Ciocal Bartholanus Briotan or Gathelus If the silence of good Authours the distance of time and want of Ancient Annals complained of makes the History of Brutus so hard to be believed I onely desire that these Irish Traditions may be examined by the same Rules and then I believe the Irish Antiquities will be reduced to the same Form with the British Onely Geffrey had not so lucky an Invention as to have his History confirm'd by Parliament For if he had but thought of it he could have made as general an Assembly of the Estates at Lud's Town and as select a Committee of Nine as ever was at Tarach But all mens Inventions do not lie the same way And in this I confess Keting or his Authours have very much exceeded Geffrey and his British MS. And upon the whole matter I cannot see that the Irish Chronologers and Historians have so much more probability in their Story of Briotan than the British Writers had in the Tradition of Brute For it is certain it was not originally the Invention of Geffrey onely he might use some art in setting it off as he thought with greater advantage than the Britains had done before him But still we are referr'd to the Authority of the Irish Monuments in the Psalter of Cashel written 800 years since by the holy Cormach both King and Bishop of Munster Let us then for once examine one part of the History taken from thence and then leave the Reader to judge whether it deserves so much more Credit than the British Antiquities
And that shall be concerning the Kingdom of the Picts because we are told This is the way to end the vexatious Questions about them being taken out of the most authentick Records of Ireland which are of such irrefragable Authority That some are persuaded had they been known to Camden he would never have disputed the matter And so I think too But this irrefragable Authority is that of the Psalter of Cashel From whence we are instructed in these Particulars 1. That the Picts served in Thracia under one Policornus a King of that Countrey where their General Gud took away the King's Life to prevent an Attempt on his Daughter And did not Brutus serve King Pandrasus with his Army not far off in Greece And methinks Pandrasus is as good a Name for a King of Greece as Polycornus for the King of Thrace But where are either of them to be met with elsewhere 2. That upon this the General and his Army fled the Countrey roamed up and down at Sea till they came to Gaul and there they founded the City of Pictavia This is just Geffrey For Brutus came to Gaul too and there fought with Groffarius King of the Picts and founded the City of Tours which had its Name from Turonus Brutus his Nephew 3. That upon the same Occasion they were forced to leave Gaul and to go for Ireland as Brutus did for Albion where they were entertained to fight with the Britains Who it seems made very early Invasions upon Ireland which still agrees with Geffrey's History 4. The Story of the Advice of Trosdan the Pictish Magician for the Irish Army to bath in the Milk of 150 White Crumple-horned Cows as an effectual Antidote against the envenom'd Arrows of the Britains and the strange Success upon it is hardly to be matched in Geffrey 5. That the Picts growing insolent were forced by Herimon to retire to the Northern Parts of Britain Onely with three Irish Women whatever Bede saith of more or how differently soever he relates the whole Story of the Picts For what is Bede's a poor Monk's Authority to King Cormach's 6. That from Cathluan Son to Gud there was a constant Succession of Kings of the Picts in that Countrey But not more exact than the Succession of British Kings from King Brutus And now I leave the Reader to judge whether Geffrey be not hardly dealt with when such Authours are preferr'd so much before him We now return to the farther Account which the Irish Antiquaries give of their own Antiquities 4. We are then to understand that besides the Race descended from Nemedus there was another called Clanna Gaoidhel or Posterity of Gathelus concerning whom these things are affirmed 1. That he was descended from Niul a younger Son to Feanusa Farsa King of Scythia who travelling into Egypt had a Countrey there given him by Pharaoh Cingeris called Capacyront I suppose in the old Egyptian Language who was married to Pharaoh 's daughter called Scota Whereas the Scotish Antiquaries do peremptorily affirm it was Gathelus himself was married to her But we ought not to forget that this Scythian King had a celebrated School on the Plain of Sennaar and one Gaodel being there employ'd to compose or refine the Irish Language called from him Gaodhelc or Gaodhlec This is a Strain beyond Geffrey who never thought of bringing the British Language from the Plain of Sennaar 2. That Gaodhel 's Posterity continued in Egypt till the time of his Grandchild Sruth and then being forced thence they landed in Creet where he died And his Eldest Son Eibhir Scot went into Scythia where one of his Descendents killed Restoir the King of that Countrey and was forced with his Company to the Caspian Sea and landed in an Island there just like Geffrey's Largeâ—ia where Brutus landed But they went from thence to Caronia another Island in the Pontick and from thence to the North end of the Riphean Mountains a pretty kind of Compass And here instead of Diana's Oracle to Brutus an old Druyd told them they should never fix till they came to the Western Island and so they removed to Gothia and in the eighth Generation they went to Spain And doth not this exceed the Story of Brute in the great Probability of it which their latest Antiquary knows not what to make of It is certain whoever invented it designed to go beyond the Authour of the former But this is not all For we are told farther from the same Authentick Irish Annals 3. That Calamb called Milead Espain or Milesius the Spaniard great Grandchild to Bratha who brought them into Spain went back into Scythia and there served as General under Refloir King of the Scythians From whence upon Suspicions he fled into Egypt and there married Pharaoh 's Daughter called Scota And at last returned to Spain and there founded Braganza And here the Scotish Antiquities fall in But is it not a little improbable to have the same Scene acted twice over Two Gaodel's two Refloir's two Scota's twice passing to and fro after much the same manner We may well say as our Authour doth enough of these profound remote Antiquities For I shall not need now to add any thing about the eight Sons of this Milesius coming to Ireland And how the rest being killed the Countrey was divided between Eibhir and Erimthon and the former being killed the latter became the first Monarch of Ireland from whom descended 181 Monarchs of this Milesian Race which must depend on the Credit of their Annals of which I have already spoken But in short to give the true Account of these Fabulous Antiquities We are then to consider That when the Northern Nations began to have some smattering of the Greek and Roman Learning they were never satisfied till by one means or other they could deduce their Original from some of the Nations most celebrated in ancient Books Such were the Trojans the Greeks and the Egyptians As to the Trojans the Romans themselves had shewed the Way to other Nations For there are considerable Arguments to prove that neither Aeneas nor Ascanius ever came into Italy as may be seen in Dionysius Halycarnasseus Strabo and Festus in the Word Roma Hellanicus in Dionysius saith That Ascanius from whom Brutus is derived never left Phrygia But onely withdrew for a time to Dascylites near the Lake from him called the Ascanian and afterwards returned to Troy Strabo saith That Ascanius reigned at Scepsis near the Ruins of Troy and that his Posterity continued there a long time after with a Royal Title Festus shews that the old Authours were not agreed where Aeneas was buried Many were of Opinion that he lay buried in the City Berecinthia And some in Dionysius say he died in Thrace others in Arcadia But the Romans making it so great a part of their Glory to be descended from the Trojans Other Nations of Europe upon the Dissolution of the Roman