shall after all find the Life of St. David not much clearer than that of his Nephew Arthur for he is supposed to have been Uncle to him by the Mother's side whose Name is said to be Nonnita in Capgrave Nonna in the Utrecht MS. Nemata in Colganus Melari in the Life of St. Kenna so Colganus and Bollandus say But in Capgrave I find Melari said to be the Mother to the Father of St. David i. e. to Xantus King of the Provincia Ceretica i. e. Cardiganshire so called from Ceretus Father to Xanctus say some from Caraticus who ruled here as Camden seems inclinable to believe That Melari was one of the 12 Daughters of Braghanus King of Brecknock from whom Giraldus saith the County took its Name And he said from the British Histories that he had 24 Daughters but Capgrave saith he had 12 Sons and 12 Daughters D. Powell in his Notes on Giraldus saith this Brachanus his Father was Haulaphus King of Ireland and his Mother a Britain viz. Marcella Daughter to Theodoric Son of Tethwaltus King of Garthmathrin afterwards called Brecknock Another Daughter of Brachanus he saith was Wife to Congenus Son to Cadel King of Powisland and Mother of Brochmiel who killed Etheldred King of Northumberland and routed his Army about Anno Dom. 603. By this we see what a Number of Petty Princes there was about that time among the Britains but whether St. David were Vncle by the Mother to King Arthur or not we have not light enough to discover I shall pass over all the Legendary parts of his Life and consider onely what relates to the Church-History of those times His Domestick Education is said to have been under Pauleus or Paulinus a Disciple of St. German with whom he continued ten years in the Isle of Wight saith Giraldus but it seems more probable to have been Whiteland in Caermardenshire the School of Iltutus being not far off in Glamorganshire at Lantwitt i. e. Fanum Iltuti and in his Life it is said that he came to the King of Glamorgan and after that Sampson Paulinus Gildas and David were his Scholars But Bollandus shews that there must be a mistake as to David and that instead of him it should be read Daniel who was a Disciple of Iltutus and consecrated first Bishop of Bangor by Dubricius After this it is said that David and Eliud or Teliaus and Paternus went to Jerusalem and David was there consecrated Bishop by the Patriarch And it is not to be wondred that in such a distracted time at home they should go to Jerusalem when Saint Jerome in his time mentions the Britains going thither especially such as were more inclined to Devotion which humour spread so much that Gregory Nyssen wrote against it as a thing very much tending to Superstition if not arising from it But it was most excusable in such a troublesome time at home Not long after his return the famous Synod at Brevy was held at a place called Lhandewy-brevy the Church of Saint David at Brevy Here the Vtrecht MS. saith was a Synod assembled of all the Bishops of Britain upon the account of the Pelagian Controversie then revived Giraldus saith It was a general Convention of Clergy and Laity But the former MS. saith there were present 118. Bishops besides Abbats and others One would think it hard to find so many Bishops in Britain at that time And Bollandus startles at it but Colganus undertakes to defend it having premised that Giraldus and Capgrave leave it out But he saith there were more Bishops at that time than afterwards and more Bishops than Bishopricks Dioceses not being then so limitted as afterwards And every Monastery almost having a Bishop its Superiour By which means he justifies Saint Patrick 's consecrating as Jocelin saith 350 Bishops with his own hands But after all this Giraldus did much better to omit such a number in such a time unless there were better Testimony concerning it However there was a considerable number there present yet St. David was absent and first Paulinus was sent to him but he prevailed not then Daniel and Dubricius went upon whose intreaty he came and by his Authority and Eloquence put an effectual stop to Pelagianism And before the end of the Synod it is said That by general Consent he was chosen Archbishop of Caerleon Dubricius desiring to retire on the account of his Age. But here we meet with a considerable difficulty concerning the Succession to Dubricius viz. That Teliaus is said to succeed Dubricius at Landaff and to have power over all the Churches of the Western parts of Britain How can this be consistent with St. David's succeeding Dubricius in the See of Caerleon which had the Metropolitan Power over those Churches Bishop Godwin out of Bale and as he supposeth out of Leland saith That St. Dubricius was first Bishop of Landaff being there consecrated by Germanus and Lupus and that afterwards he was removed by a Synod to Caerleon and Teliaus placed in Landaff But this by no means clears the difficulty for although Bale doth there exactly follow Leland yet Leland himself did not seem to have consulted the Book of Landaff Where it is said That when Dubricius was made Archbishop he had the See of Landaff conferr'd upon him by the Gift of Mouricus then King and the three Estates i. e. the Nobles Clergy and People and all the Land between the Taff and Elei And Leland himself out of another Authour saith That when Dubricius was made Archbishop Landaff was made his Cathedral Church After Dubricius his time Teliaus is said to be Archbishop several times in the Book of Landaff and after him Oudoceus is called Summus Episcopus and the Bishop of Landaff in 〈◊〉 Sermon to Calixtus 2. Anno Dom. 1109. saith That it appears by the hand writing of St. Teliaus That the Church of Landaff was superiour in dignity to all other Churches in Wales That which seems to me the most probable account of this matter is That when Landaff was given to Dubricius then Archbishop he fixed his See there and so Landaff was the Seat of the Archbishop of Caerleon But afterwards when St. David removed the Archiepiscopal See to Menevia a remote barren and inconvenient place as Giraldus himself confesseth The Bishops of Landaff assumed the Archiepiscopal Power which had been in that See and would not submit to the Bishops of St. Davids This is apparent from that passage of Oùdocëus who succeeded Theliaus in the Book of Landaff that he would not receive Consecration from the Bishop of St. Davids as his Metropolitan but had it from the Archbishop of Canterbury This is a very improbable thing at that time considering the hatred the Britains did bear to the Saxons and their Bishops to Augustin the Monk It is far more likely that they received it from the Archbishop of Dole in Britany or from the Archbishop of London then resident in those parts
Athens should be without his Druids or Sanachies or Bards who would transmit to Posterity his famous Actions and therefore I cannot but wonder that the learned Advocate should seem to stick at their ancient Origination and Descent and be so unwilling to go any farther back than their first settlement in Scotland For no doubt the History of Gathelus and Scota were transmitted to Posterity the very same way that the other was and the same Arguments will indifferently serve for both Nay why should the British History be questioned since no doubt the Britains had Druids Sanachies and Bards as well as the Scots or Irish. And yet the Advocate will by no means allow the British Antiquities although they pretend to the very same Grounds which he makes use of to support the Scottish If the Druids were good Historians in Scotland why not much rather among the Britains where Caesar saith they had their Original Institution and the most sacred Authority But Buchanan absolutely denies that the Druids ever wrote Histories and he affirms from Caesar that when he came hither they had no Records or way of preserving the memory of things past and Tacitus and Gildas could meet with no certain Account from Domestick Histories And as to his Sanachies and Bards I shall onely give him Buchanan's Answer in his own Words Quod autem ad Bardos Seneciones veteris memoriae custodes quidam confugiunt prorsus perridicule faciunt Which he proves because the Bards were an ignorant sort of People that had no Monuments of Antiquity and the Sanachies were Men wholly without Learning and who lived by flattering great Men and therefore no certain Account of things can be expected from them And withall saith he since we find Historians liable to so many mistakes after all the pains and care they take to search after the Truth of things what credit can be given to those who pretend to deliver History merely by their Memories But the Advocate objects that the Laws of Lycurgus were preserved in the Memories of Men for 600 years as Plutarch observes and the Scots and other Nations have preserved Laws for much longer time without the help of Letters But is there no difference between Laws of daily Practice and Antiquities which depend merely upon Memory where there is no use of Letters And as to Laws themselves I shall onely desire the learned Advocate to give an Account of their Macalpine Laws which Fordon saith were composed by Kenneth who subdued the Picts I know that Hector Boethius who stands out at nothing pretends to deliver them as exactly as if he had lived at that time and Lesly who follows him very carefully sets them down as he found them in him But what ancient Copy do they produce for these Laws Not one Word of that But was it not fit that he who had so many Kings should make a Body of Laws too Fordon never pretends to know them onely he thinks there were some of them still remaining Joh. Major takes no notice of them Buchanan just mentions them and saith they continued long after him but how long he could not tell But it is observable that when he comes to mention the Laws of Alexander III. so long after him for he died A. D. 1285. and the other according to him A. D. 854 he saith they were all antiquated by the negligence of the People and the length of Time Now if the Laws so much later were quite forgotten how come the Macalpin Laws to be so exactly preserved But it may be there was another Chest of Laws at Icolmkill besides that of MSS. which Hector Boethius saith Fergus brought from the Sacking of Rome in the time of Alaric Yet even that would prove that Records are the best preservers of Laws and one would think no Advocate in the World could be of another opinion 2. From the Druids I proceed to the first Monks of Scotland who are said to have left Records in their Monasteries of the History of former times The first Monastery there is confessed to be that of the Island Iona or Hy or Icolmkill i. e. Hy the Cell of Columba founded about the year 560. and there the Advocate saith their Records were kept from the Foundation to the Reign of Malcolm Can-more Now we are fallen into an Age of some Light such as it is but whether it will be to the Advocate 's satisfaction I know not For Cummeneus Albus and Adamnanus both Abbats of Hy not long after Columba have given an Account of Columba the Founder of that Monastery and both wrote before Bede's time By them it appears that Columba came out of Ireland thither and Adamnanus saith he was the Son of Fedlimid the Son of Fergus which Fergus say the Irish Antiquaries was second Husband to Erica Daughter of Loarn Brother to Fergus who carried the first Colony into Scotland and that Fergus Grandfather to Columba was Son to Conallus Grandchild to Niellus Magnus King of Ireland about A. D. 405. in whose time St. Patrick was carried captive into Ireland And so from the time of Columba's coming and his Relation to the Kings both of Scotland and Ireland they have endeavoured to fix the time of Fergus his coming with the first Colony into Scotland The account they give in short is this that Carbre Riada was one of the Sons of Conar II. King of Ireland about A. D. 165. from him the Family and Countrey where they lived was called Dalrieda and they while in Ireland were styled Kings of Dalrieda from him descended Eric the Father of Loarn and Fergus who went into Scotland To this Fergus succeeded Domangardus Comgallus Gauranus and Conallus the Son of Comgallus in whose time Columba came into Scotland for Adamnanus saith he conversed with Conallus the Son of Comgill who according to Tigernacus and the Ulster Annals gave the Island Hy to Columba But Bede saith it was given by the Picts whom Columba converted to the Christian Faith Which must seem strange if the Scots then had the possession of those Parts and therefore the learned Primate of Armagh inclines to the former opinion The same Tigernacus in the Irish Annals makes Fergus the Son of Eric to have carried over the Dalredians into Britain six years after the death of St. Patrick and the old Authour cited by Camden confirms the Succession of Fergus from Conar and his being the first King of Albany which agrees with the Irish Antiquaries saying that Carbre Riada the Ancestour to Fergus was the Son of Conar Monarch of Ireland But suppose all this that Columba was descended from one Fergus and related to the other who went over with the Dalredians into Scotland and that he was there in the time of Conallus Son to Comgill Grandchild to this Fergus how doth it hence appear that there was not another Fergus long before and a Succession of Kings in Scotland
till Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury obtain'd leave for it about Anno Dom. 758. Upon this Alford and Cressy charge him with a manifest mistake and great impertinency A mistake in that Ethelbert and Augustine were both buried in the Church of St. Peter and Saint Paul And what then Doth Sir H. Spelman say there was no burying in Churches before Cuthbert's time No. But that there was no Burying Place in Cities before that time For the Church of St. Augustine or St. Peter and St. Paul was without the City For so the MS. Chronicle of St. Augustine 's saith That when the Bodies of the Kings and Archbishops were carried thither to burial they follow'd our Saviour who suffer'd without the Gate And that it was like the children of Israel 's going out of Egypt c. Which is sufficient to prove the truth of Sir H. Spelman's Observation which relates to Burying in Cities and not in Churches And withall the Reason alledged in one of the Charters of King Ethelbert why that place was assigned for a Burying place is because the City is for the Living and not for the Dead But why do they not prove the Antiquity of Church-yards to be so great which was the most to the purpose But they say Sir H. Spelman 's Observation was impertinent Glassenbury being then a solitary place and very far from being a City It is true If the weight had been laid by him onely upon that there being no Evidence of any Roman City there But his design was to prove That Church-yards were not then adjoining to Churches because the Cemeteries were without the City and the Churches within in the British times And even in the Saxon times he saith although they buried in Churches yet those Churches in which they buried were without the Cities till Cuthbert first procured the alteration by Royal authority and some say by Papal too But the Monks of St. Augustine's denied the Pope's confirmation But the main Circumstance I shall insist upon is the Incongruity of this Story with the condition of the Roman Province at that time For there was no such British King then as Arviragus and in that Countrey as will appear by the more Southern parts of the Island being reduced into the form of a Province before Anno Dom. 63. when the Glassenbury Tradition saith Joseph of Arimathea came first to Britain For Tacitus saith it was done as to the nearest part of the Island when A. Plautius and Ostorius Scapula were Governours here and between them and Suetonius Paulinus were Didius Gallus and Veranius In probability the Belgae were subdued by Vespasian of whom Suetonius saith That he conquer'd here two powerfull Nations aboue twenty Towns and the Isle of Wight By which we find his employment was Westward and the Belgae and Damnonii were the two powerfull Nations that way And in all the Actions afterwards we find no Care taken by the Roman Generals to secure themselves against the Belgae as they did against the Brigantes and Silures among whom Caractacus commanded so that there could be no such British King at that time among the Belgae as Arviragus is supposed to have been For if there had been when Ostorius marched Northwards having suppressed the Iceni it is not to be supposed that he would have fixed his Garrisons on the Severn and the Avon to secure the Province For as our Judicious Antiquary hath well observed The design of Ostorius therein was to keep the Provincial Britains from joining with the others and therefore all on this side those Garrisons were within the Roman Province Now the Places where the Garrisons were placed are by Tacitus said to be Antona and Sabrina The latter is certainly the Severn which parted the Belgae and the Silures For Antona Camden reads Aufona although Northanton comes nearer the former Name and Southanton had its Name from the River Anton which there runs into the Sea and Ptolemy calls Trisanton i. e. saith Camden Traith Anton the Mouth of Anton But he chuses Aufona for this reason because the two Avons rise both in the Country of Northampton and so cut the Island that none can pass out of the North but they must cross one or the other of them or else fall upon the Roman Garrisons between the Remainders whereof he takes notice of between the rise of the two Avons at Gildsborough and Daintry by which means he hindred all intercourse between the Brigantes and the Roman Province as the other did between the Silures and them But if there had been such a British King as Arviragus among the Belgae what would the fortifying the Severn have signified when the Enemies to the Romans lived on the Roman side Tacitus indeed mentions an Expedition of Ostorius against the Cangi whom Camden sometimes thought a small People among the Belgae but upon better consideration he places them in Cheshire where he found an Inscription concerning the CEANGI And Tacitus saith They were not far from the Sea coast which looks towards Ireland R. White of Basingstoke supposes this Arviragus to bestow the Island on Joseph of Arimathea when Trebellius Maximus was Governour here who succeeded Petronius Turpilianus the year C. Suetonius Paulinus was Consul at Rome Which according to the Savilian Fasti was in the twelfth year of Nero and Anno Domini 67. four years after Joseph's coming according to the Glassenbury Tradition but that is no great matter if at that time we are sure there was such a King as Arvinagus among the Belgae But he again contradicts the Glassenbury Story For Malmsbury saith That the Barbarous King obstinately refused to quit his Religion but out of pity to them gave them the Island to live in but White saith He was well affected to the Christian Religion and was in all respects an admirable Prince This Arviragus he takes out of the British History where pleasant Stories are told of him and from thence in Matthew Westminster as of his opposing Claudius and then marrying his Daughter Genissa and the reconciliation between him and Vespasian by her means c. And how his Son Marius succeeded him and then Coillus who was wonderfully beloved by the Roman Senate Here we have found at last the three Kings of Glassenbury Arviragus Marius and Coillus as they are exstant in Capgrave and others So that the Glassenbury Tradition had not its perfection till it had received these improvements from the British History For William of Malmsbury though he took so great pains in this matter yet knew nothing of Arviragus Marius and Coillus He speaks indeed of three Pagan Kings giving twelve portions of Land to the twelve Brethren but he knew not their Names Which Grant he saith was confirmed by King Lucius to twelve others who were placed there in imitation of the first twelve And this continued to the coming of St. Patrick And yet towards the Conclusion of this Book
he saith That Anno Domini 601. the King of Dompnonia i. e. Devonshire and Cornwall gave to the old Church in Glassenbury the Land called Ynis Withrin or the Island of Avalon Who this King was he saith he could not learn but he concludes him to have been a Britain by calling the Island by the British Name But as to Arviragus that there was a British Prince of that name cannot be denied since Juvenal mentions him in Domitian's time Omen habes inquit magni clarÃque Triumphi Regem aliquem capies aut de Temone Britanno Excidet Arviragus The Authour of the Chronicle of Dover understands this Passage as spoken to Nero which agrees much better with the Tradition of Glassenbury but will by no means agree with Juvenal who saith plainly enough that Satyr related to Domitian and his Flatterers And this was a very insipid Flattery to Domitian unless Arviragus were a considerable Prince then living and an Enemy to Caesar. For what Triumph could he have over a Subject or a Friend as Aviragus is supposed after the reconciliation with Vespasian And no such Enemy could appear at that time in these parts of Britain For Petilius Cerealis had conquer'd the Brigantes and Julius Frontinus the Silures and Agricola after them the Ordovices And in the time of his Government Tacitus saith Even the consederate Cities among the Britains who stood upon Terms of Equality before then submitted themselves to the Roman Power and received Garrisons among them After this Agricola proceeded Northwards against new People and destroyed them as far as the Frith of Taus Tweed Then he fortified the Passage between Glota and Bodotria Dumbretton and Edenborough Frith So that the Romans were absolute Lords of all this side having cast out the Enemy as it were into another Land as Sir H. Savil translates the words of Tacitus From which it is evident there could be no such King as Arviragus at that time in these parts of the Island over whom Domitian could expect a Triumph But suppose there were what is this to the eighth of Nero when Joseph of Arimathea is said to have come hither at what time Arviragus is said to be King in Britain It is possible he might live so long but how comes he to be never mention'd in the Roman Story as Prasutagus Cogidunus Caractacus Togodumnus and Galgacus are Arviragus his name was well known at Rome in Domitian's time why not spoken of before Some think he was the same with Prasutagus but this cannot be for Prasutagus was dead before the Revolt of the Britains under Boadicea which was occasion'd by the Romans ill usage of the Britains after his death And Prasutagus left onely two Daughters what becomes then of his Son Marius whom White would have to be Cogidunus But Marius is said to succeed Arviragus who was alive in Domitian's time and Cogidunus had the Cities conferred upon him before Suetonius Paulinus came into Britain as appears by Tacitus which are things inconsistent Others say that Arviragus was the same with Caractacus for this Opinion Alford contends and Juvenal he saith mentions the name by a Poetical Licence although he lived long before But what reason is there to suppose that Fabricius Veienti should make such a course Complement to Domitian that he should triumph over a man dead and triumphed over once already by Claudius who was never known at Rome by any other name than Caractacus as far as we can find by which he was so famous for his long Opposition to the Romans But it is very probable that in Domitian's time after the recalling Agricola and taking away the Life of Salustius Lucullus his Successour The Britains took up Arms under Arviragus And the Learned Primate of Armagh mentions an old British Coin in Sir R. Cotton's Collections with these Letters on it ARIVOG from whence he thinks his true name was Arivogus which the Romans turned to Arviragus And the old Scholiast there saith that was not his true name The Britains being now up in Arms as far as we can learn were not repressed till Hadrian came over in Person and built the first Wall to keep them out of the Roman Province For before this Spartianus saith The Britains could not be kept in subjection to the Roman Power So that here was a fit season in Domitian's time Agricola being recalled in the beginning of Domitian's Reign for such a King as Arviragus to appear in the head of the Britains and it was then a suitable Complement to him to wish him a Triumph over Arviragus But Alford saith that Claudius sent Caractacus home again and after many years he dyed in Peace being a Friend to the Romans How then comes Tacitus to take no notice of him as he doth of Cogidunus Is it probable the Romans would restore so subtile and dangerous an Enemy as Caractacus had been to them Cogidunus had been always faithfull to them but Caractacus an open Enemy and the Silures still in being over whom he commanded and not over the Belgae as he must have done if he were the Arviragus who gave the Hydes of Land to Joseph of Arimathea and his Companions These things I have here put together to shew for what Reasons I decline the Tradition of Joseph of Arimathea's coming hither to Preach the Gospel And although they may not be sufficient to convince others yet I hope they may serve to clear me from unexcusable Partiality which Mr. Cressy charges on all who call this Tradition into question 2. But notwithstanding I hope to make it appear from very good and sufficient Evidence that there was a Christian Church planted in Britain during the Apostles times And such Evidence ought to be allow'd in this matter which is built on the Testimony of ancient and credible Writers and hath a concurrent probability of Circumstances I shall first produce the Testimony of ancient and credible Writers For it is an excellent Rule of Baronius in such Cases That no Testimonies of later Authours are to be regarded concerning things of remote Antiquity which are not supported by the Testimony of ancient Writers And there is a difference in the force of the Testimony of ancient Writers themselves according to their Abilities and Opportunities For some had far greater judgment than others some had greater care about these matters and made it more their business to search and enquire into them and some had greater advantages by being present in the Courts of Princes or Councils of Bishops whereby they could better understand the Beginning and Succession of Churches And for all these there was none more remarkable in Antiquity than Eusebius being a learned and inquisitive Person a Favorite of Constantine the first Christian Emperour born and proclaimed Emperour in Britain one present at the Council at Nice whither Bishops were summoned from all parts of the Empire and one that had a particular curiosity to examine
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
Edw. I. destroy'd all their ancient Histories how came Turgott's to be preserved He was Bishop of St. Andrew's in the time of Malcolm III. and Queen Margaret whose Lives he wrote And whose History Hector saith he had So that not onely Turgott's History of the Church of Durham is preserved in the Cotton Library with his own Name written in an ancient Character the same that is printed under the Name of Simeon Dunelmensis with some Alterations as Mr. Selden hath shewed But if Hoveden be so much to blame as Leland saith for concealing what he borrow'd from Simeon Dunelmensis Simeon himself is at least as much to blame for assuming to himself the proper work of Turgott But it seems Hector had seen what he wrote in relation to the Scotish History And Bale and Pits say he wrote of the Kings of Scotland But Dempster saith he wrote onely the Annals of his own time i. e. I suppose the Lives of Malcolm and Margaret If so Hector mentions him to little purpose with respect to the Scotish Antiquities But however from the forementioned Authours Hector pretends to give an Account of the Institution of the Great Council by Finannus of the Order of the Druids and their Chief Seat in the Island Mona which he would have to be the Isle of Man to the great regret of Humphrey Lluyd who hath written a Book on purpose to disprove him and Polydore Virgil about it Of the Tyranny and violent Death of King Durstus Of the choice of Euenus his Kinsman to succeed him and his first requiring an Oath of Allegeance Of the Disturbances by Gillus his natural Son and his flying into Ireland And his Death by Cadallus And Euenus his setting up Edecus the Grandchild of Durstus with which he ends his Second Book In his Third Book he gives an Account of the Troubles from Ireland by Bredius a Kinsman of Gillus Of Cassibellan's Message to Ederus for Assistence against Julius Caesar And the Speech of Androgeus before the Council and Ederus his Answer and sending 10000 Men under the Command of Cadallanus Son to Cadallus Who with the British Forces quite overthrew Caesar by the help of Tenantius Duke of the Cambri and Corinei for which as we may easily conceive there was wonderfull rejoicing in Scotland And great Friendship upon it between the Britains the Picts and the Scots But next Summer they hear the sad News of Caesar's coming again And then the Britains refused the Scots assistence and it is easie to imagine what must follow the poor Britains were miserably beaten And Cassibellan yields himself to Caesar and Caesar marches towards Scotland but before he enters it he sends a more Eloquent Letter to them than that in Fordon And the Scots and Picts returned a resolute Answer But it seems Caesar had so much good Nature in him as to send a Second Message to the Scots which was deliver'd with great Eloquence but it did not work upon them For saith Hector had it not been for the Law of Nations they had torn the Messengers to pieces But it happen'd luckily that while Caesar was making Preparations to enter Scotland he received Letters from Labienus of the Revolt of the Gauls upon which Caesar returns having scarce so much as frighted the Picts and the Scots And here again Hector vouches the Authority of Veremundus and Campbell But notwithstanding Buchanan very wisely leaves all this out which Lesly believing Veremundus or rather Hector before Caesar keeps in But here Hector becomes very nice and critical rejecting the vulgar Annals which it seems were not destroy'd by Edw. I. which say that Caesar went as far as the Caledonian Wood and besieged Camelodunum and left there his Pretorian House which he used to travell with called Julis Hoff. But for his part he would write nothing that might be found fault with and therefore he follows Veremundus again That this was the Temple of Victory built by Vespasian not far from Camelodunum Onely the Inscription was defaced by Edw. I. Buchanan in the Life of King Donald saith This was the Temple of the God Terminus being near the Roman Wall It was a round Building made of square Stones and open onely at the top 24 Cubits in height 13 in breadth as Camden describes it Nennius saith It was built by Carausius in token of his Triumph But this looks no more like a Triumphal Arch than Caesar's travelling Palace And therefore Buchanan's opinion seems most probable since Hector saith That there was within it a Stone of great magnitude which was the Representation of the God Terminus especially if the hole in the top were over the Stone as it was in the Capitol at Rome Then follow the wicked Life and tragical End of Euenus III. the good Reign of Metellanus and his Friendship with Augustus which he goes about to prove from Strabo But he had better kept to Veremundus After him succeeded Caratacus born at Caractonium a City of the Silures saith Hector and that he might be sure to confound all he saith his Sister Voada was married to Arviragus King of the Britains But he divorced her and married Geuissa a Noble Roman upon which Caratacus joined the Britains against the Romans and was at last beaten by them and betrayed by Cartumandua his Mother-in-law who after his Father's death was married to Venusius and was by Ostorius carried in Triumph to Rome from whence he saith he returned to Scotland and remained to his death a Friend to the Romans After Caractacus Corbred his Brother was chosen King who joined with Voada against the Romans And partaking of her misfortune returned into Scotland and there died His Sons being under Age Dardannus succeeded Who designing to destroy the right Heirs of the Crown was himself taken off And thereby Way was made for Galdus the true Heir to succeed Who was the same saith Hector with Tacitus his Galgacus and he confesses was beaten by Petilius Cerealis This King Buchanan thinks was the first of their Kings who fought with the Romans What becomes then of the Credit of Hector and Veremundus from whom we have such ample Narrations of their engaging with the Romans so long before From hence it is plain that Veremundus his Authority signified nothing with him And yet he follows Hector where he professes to rely upon his Authority For Buchanan evidently abridges Hector as to the Scotish Affairs leaving out what he found inconsistent with the Roman History Hector begins his Fifth Book with the short Reign and dolefull End of Luctacus Galdus his Son who was succeeded by Mogallus his Sisters Son who continued for some time a brave Prince but at last degenerating was killed by his Subjects After him Conarus his Son who was confined for ill management and the Government committed to Argadus Upon his death the Kingdom fell to Ethodius Nephew to Mogallus who was strangled in his Bed by an Irish Harper And so was Satrael that succeeded him
Monarchy by Romulus are delivered with as much certainty as the Carthaginian War The most judicious Writers among the Greeks and Romans did make allowance for the Obscurity of Ancient times when many things were utterly lost and others very imperfectly delivered What Reproach then is it to any modern Nations to suppose their Histories to have had the same Fate the Greeks and Romans had Onely in this respect they are liable to greater Dispute because they pretend to give an exact Account of those times before they had any Annals or written Records and in this Case the more exact and particular the more suspicious And we have more certain Rules of trying their ancient Histories than the Greeks and Romans had because we have the Accounts of several Nations to compare together and undoubted Testimonies of other Writers to examine them by And if they be not found faulty by some of these ways we are contented to let them pass But as to the Scotish Antiquities we not onely object the Want of sufficient Antiquity in their written Records but their Inconsistency with approved Writers in the most ancient Account they give of the first settling of the Scots so early in Britain And which yet adds more to the suspicion the Irish from whom they descend give a far more different Account of their first coming than themselves do as will appear by what follows For The Irish Antiquaries will by no means allow the Account given by Hector Boethius And say He had not regard to Truth in the Writing of it Particularly as to Simon Brek's coming out of Spain and bringing the fatal Chair with him which they say are both false and the main ground they insist upon is That they are contrary to the Relation of the Old Irish Antiquaries who deserve far more Credit I shall therefore set down the Account they give and consider the Credit they deserve The best Account we have from them is this 1. That Ireland was first planted after the Floud by one Ciocal with a Fleet wherein every Vessel had fifty Men and fifty Women And this Keting saith happen'd about 100 years after the Deluge But since such remote Antiquities are very tender things I shall not with a Besom sweep them all away at once but gently take them in Pieces and lay them open as I pass along Now I desire to know what Foundation there is for our believing a thing so unlikely as the Peopling of Ireland in this manner with such a Fleet so soon after the Floud It was a long time after this before the Phoenicians had any skill in Shipping to whom the Romans attributed the Invention of it And certainly the Expedition of the Argonautae had not made such a noise among the Greeks so long after the Floud but twenty years before the Destruction of Troy as Scaliger saith which happen'd in the time of the Judges if the Skill in Shipping had been so great within 100 years after it Yet if that Expedition were such as Olaus Rudbeck describes it it was far more considerable than is commonly thought For he saith They not onely entred the Euxine Sea but he proves from Orpheus and Diodorus Siculus that they sailed up the Tanais from whence Hornius in his Map saith They went into the Mare Cronium and so came round Egypt passing between Britain and Ireland and returning home by the Straits But Rudbeck finds a Passage for them from the Tanais to the Volga and so to the Lake of Fronoe the Head of the Volga and then by Rivers into the Baltick Sea and so about the Scythian Promontory to Ierne Ireland and Peucessa Britain and to Ausonia Italy and Trinacria Sicily and so home to Iolcos If this were a mere Poetical Fancy yet it was extraordinary since it agrees with the exact Description of the Northern Countries saith Rudbeck far more than Ptolemy doth I will suppose this Orpheus who wrote the Argonauticks to be neither the Old Orpheus nor Onomacritus but Orpheus of Crotona to whom Suidas attributes the Argonauticks who lived in the time of Pisistratus yet it is very much for him then to describe these Parts of the World as he doth and to mention Ireland as a Countrey then known to the Greeks And Festus Avienus describing the Voyage of Himilco the Carthaginian spoken of by Pliny speaks of Ireland as then esteemed Sacred in these remarkable Verses Ast hinc duobus in sacram sic Insulam Dixere prisci solibus cursus rati est Haec inter Vndas multum cespitem jacit Eámque latè Gens Hibernorum colit Propinqua rursus Insula Albionum patet Nothing can be plainer than that he here speaks of Ireland and Britain as then known by Himilco For Festus Avienus saith He took this Description from the Phoenician Annals in which this Voyage was inserted And it is very strange to me that Olaus Rudbeck should here change the Hiberni into Hyperborei especially when he allows Albion to stand for Britain But these are undoubted Testimonies of the ancient Peopling of Ireland and of far greater Authority than those domestick Annals now so much extolled But must we follow Keting because he follows the old Annals in this Tradition of the first Peopling of Ireland And why not then in the Story of Seth and three Daughters of Cain viewing Ireland And of the three Fishermen of Spain being Wind driven thither the year before the Floud And of Keasar the Daughter of Bajoth Son of Noah coming thither with three Men and fifty Women to save themselves from the Floud Are not all these fine Stories in the same Irish Annals But Keting rejects them And what then Doth this make for or against the Authority of these Annals that even Keting looks on these as Poetical Fictions But he saith The best Irish Antiquaries did of Old look on these as fabulous Possibly the two former they might But do they indeed reject the Story of Keasar and her Companions Giraldus Cambrensis quotes the most ancient Histories of Ireland for this Tradition and they confirm it by the Names of the Place where she landed and where she was buried And Gratianus Lucius confesses that he had the sight of their ancient Annals and he suspects that he made away many of them If so Keting had fewer advantages than Giraldus for the Old Irish Antiquities But if these Old Annals be of so little Authority in this Story What Credit do they deserve in this early Plantation after the Floud But to proceed in the Irish Account It is said 2. That Bartholanus and his three Sons about three hundred years after the Floud landing in Ireland with a thousand fighting Men had many doughty Battels with the Posterity of Ciocal And at the end of three hundred years they were all consumed by a Pestilence This Story I confess is in Nennius and Giraldus Cambrensis But it is a very obvious Question if they all died
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
Picts and the Scots after they had beaten them and then took occasion to quarrell with the Britains Onely they still endeavour'd to keep Vortigern firm to them To this purpose Nennius tells the Story of Hengist's fair Daughter Rovena and how Vortigern was insnared by her to the great dissatisfaction of the Britains Hector Boethius saith That Vodinus Bishop of London was killed by Hengist for reproving Vortigern for that Marriage But we must not be too strict upon Hector to put him to produce his Vouchers And the British History adds that Hengist being a subtile Man insinuated still into Vortigern That his own People did not love him and that they would depose him and set up Aurelius Ambrosius and by such Arts they widen'd the Distance between him and his People when they designed nothing less than the destruction of both It is certain by what Gildas and Bede have left that these heats soon brake out into open Flames to the Ruine and Desolation of the Countrey But how the War began and by what means it was first managed on the British side is not so clear But Nennius saith That when Vortigern 's wickedness grew so great as to marry his own Daughter he was condemned in solemn Council of the British Nation both Clergy and Laity and upon the Advice of his Nobles he withdrew himself from Affairs to a private Castle But the British History makes it worse viz. That the Britains forsook him and set up his Son Vortimer who behaved himself with great Courage and Resolution against the Saxons And then reckons up four Battels which he fought with them The first upon the Derwent the second at Episford or rather Alesford the third upon the Sea-shore when he drove them into their Ships and so home but the fourth is not mention'd After which Geffrey relates Vortimer's being poison'd by his Mother-in-law and the restoring of Vortigern and his calling for the Saxons back again Nennius speaks of Vortimer's fighting with Hengist and Horsus and adds his Success to have been so great as to have driven them into the Isle of Thanet and that there he besieged and beat and terrified them to that degree That they sent into Germany for fresh Succours by which they were enabled to manage the War with various Success against the Britains And then reckons up the three Battels just as Geffrey doth Onely the last he saith was upon the Sea-shore juxta lapidem tituli a little after which he saith that Vortimer died without any mention of Poison But he saith before his death he gave command to have his Body buried on the Sea-shore where the Saxons fled which was neglected and to which Nennius imputes their Return after which they could never be driven out Because as he saith It was the Divine Pleasure more than their own Valour which made them settle here And it is he that orders and rules the Nations of the Earth And who can resist his Will It is plain by all this that Nennius consulted the Honour of the British Nation as much as it was possible and nowhere useth that freedom which Gildas doth in setting forth the great Sins among them which provoked God to punish them in so severe a manner The Place where Vortimer desired to be buried is called by Nennius Lapis Tituli from whence Camden and Archbishop Vsher conceive it to be Stonar in the Isle of Thanet near Richborrow but Nennius saith onely It was upon the Shore of the French Sea From whence Mr. Somner rather concludes it to be Folkstone in Kent because of its lofty Situation whereas Stonar lies in a low and flat level apt to Inundations But then Nennius must have mistaken Lapis Tituli for Lapis Populi and I dare say Nennius was guilty of greater mistakes than that But he farther observes that in the ancient Records the name is not Stonar but Estonar which signifies the Eastern Border Shore or Coast. Matthew of Westminster gives this Account of these Proceedings That the British Nobility forsaking Vortigern set up Vortimer who with their Assistence pursued the Saxons to Derwent and there killed many of them Which seems to have been Darent in Kent thence Dartford as Camden observes is the same with Darenford But he makes Vortigern to have fled away with the Saxon Army and to have given them all the Assistence he could And then saith he Vortimer began to restore the Britains Possessions to them and to rebuild their Churches and to shew kindness to the Churchmen The next year he saith The Saxons fought again with the Britains at Ailesford and after a sharp Fight the Saxons fled and great multitudes of them were slain Not long after Vortimer with his Brothers Catigern and Pascentius and the whole Nation of the Britains made War with the Saxons and in Battel Catigern was killed by Horsus and Horsus by Vortimer upon which the Saxon Army fled The next year he saith Hengist fought three Battels with Vortimer and at last he was forced to go back into Germany and four years after Vortimer saith he was poison'd Anno Dom. 460. and buried in London and then Vortigern recalled the Saxons William of Malmsbury saith That the Britains and Saxons agreed for seven years after their Landing and then Vortimer finding their Deceit incensed his Father and the Britains against them and so for twenty years there was continual War and light Skirmishes and four pitched Battels In the first he makes their Fortune equal Horsa being killed on one side and Catigis on the other In the rest the Saxons being always superiour and Vortimer dead a Peace was made And so the Britains Affairs went ill till Ambrosius recover'd them Henry of Huntingdon relates this Story after a different manner He tells us That Vortigern after the Marriage of Hengist's Daughter was so hated that he withdrew to the Mountains and Woods and that he and his Castle were consumed together After which Ambrosius Aurelianus with Vortigern's two Sons Vortimer and Catiger fought the Saxons And he makes the first Battel at Ailestreu or Elstree the next after Vortimer's Death at Creganford or Crayford in which he saith the Britains were quite beaten out of Kent and from thence he begins the Saxons Kingdom of Kent The next he saith was at Wippedsflede which was so terrible on both Sides That from thence he saith That the Saxons and Britains did not disturb each other for a great while they remaining within Kent and the Britains quarrelling among themselves Florentius Wigorniensis therein differs from the rest that he makes the Battel at Aegelsthrep to have been between Vortigern and Hengist But he saith after the Battel at Creccanford the Britains fled to London and left Kent to the Saxons Wherein he follows the Saxon Annals as he doth in the Account of the two other Battels that at Wippedsfleot and that which he calls the great Victory over the Britains