The Antiquities of the British Churches, Book · Chapter 1

The Antiquities of the British Churches · Book · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAP. I. Of the first Planting a Christian Church in Britain by St. Paul.

NO Christian Church planted in Britain, during the Reign of Tiberius.

Gildas his Words mis-understood.

The Tradition concerning Joseph of Arimathea and his Brethren coming to Glassenbury, at large examined.

No Foot-steps of it in the British times.

The pretended Testimonies of British Writers disproved.

St. Patrick's Epistle, a Forgery.

Of the Saxon Charters, especially the large one of King Ina.

The Antiquity of Seals in England.

Ingulphus his Testimony explained.

All the Saxon Charters suspicious, till the end of the seventh Century.

The occasion of this Tradition, from an old British Church there.

The Circumstances about Joseph of Arimathea and Arviragus very improbable.

p. 2Sr. Henry Spelman vindicated.

The State of the Roman Province in Britain about that time.

No such King as Arviragus then.

Not the same with Caractacus.

A Christian Church proved to be Planted here in the Apostles times.

The Authentick Testimonies of Eusebius, Theodoret, and Clemens Romanus, to that purpose.

St. Paul in Probability, the first Founder of a Church here.

The Time and Opportunity he had for it, after his Release.

Of Pomponia and Graecina, Claudia Rufina, Christians at Rome, and their influence on his coming hither.

St. Peter, and St. Paul compared, as to their Preaching here, and the far greater Probability of St. Paul's.

IT is an Opinion generally received among our later Writers, as (a)(a)Animadvers. on the Church Hist. of Britain, p. 5, 6.one of them tells the World, That the Conversion of the British Nation, to the Christian Faith, was performed towards the latter end of the Reign of Tiberius Caesar, i. e. about thirty seven years after Christ's Nativity. But whosoever compares the Circumstances of those times, and considers the small number of the years between our Saviour's Passion, and the death of Tiberius, will find very little Probability, of the founding a Christian Church so soon, in a place so remote as Britain.

To make this appear, I shall not insist upon the Testimony of Apollonius in (b)(b)Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 18.Sir 50:5Eusebius, concerning the ancient Tradition, That our Saviour commanded his Apostles, not to depart from Jerusalem within twelve Years after his Ascension; nor on that of the (c)(c)Chronic. Alex. p. 50.Alexandrian Chronicle, wherein it is said, That the Apostles did not separate, till after the Council at Jerusalem; nor on that of Hippolytus Thebanus in (d)(d)Glyc. Annal. p. 3. p. 227.Glycas, and of Euodius in (e)(e)Niceph. l. 2. c. 3.Nicephorus, who reckon the Martyrdom of St. Stephen, to be seven Years after Christ's Resurrection (which some learned (f)(f)Cappel. Cent. Eccles. Christian. A. D. 38.Chronologers think more probable, than the common Computation which allows but one) before which time it is not pretended by any, that the Disciples were dispersed abroad.

p. 3But that which is of greater force and certainty, is, supposing the dispersion to have been within the Reign of Tiberius, yet the Scripture gives such an Account of the Extent, and Design of the Disciples preaching upon it, as utterly overthrows any Probability of their coming hither, for the Words are,Act. 11.19.Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the Persecution, that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, Preaching the Word unto none, but unto the Jews alone. But the nearest of these places, is at a great distance from Britain, and if they Preached to none but to the Jews, they were not likely to convert the Gentile Britains. (g)(g)Baron. ad A. D. 35. n. 5.Baronius grants. A. D. 35. That hitherto the Jews had onelyonly the Gospel preached to them; Although at the same time he pleads for the Tradition of Lazarus, Mary Magdalen, Martha and Marcella, coming then with Maximinus in a Ship without Oars to Marseilles, with a design no doubt, to spread the Gospel among the Gentiles in Gaul, for (h)(h)Bosquet. Hist. Eccles. Gallic. l. 1. c. 3.Lazarus is supposed to have been Bishop of Marseilles, and Maximinus of Aix. And he adds out of a Manuscript in the Vatican Library (which not onelyonly, like the Housholder in the Gospel, brings forth things New and Old, but sometimes things New for Old, as happens in the Case of this Manuscript, it being lately written, as (i)(i)Usser. de Primord. p. 15.Archbishop Vsher hath observed) That Joseph of Arimathea did bear them Company, and came over into Britain, to Preach the Gospel; Which according to his own Supposition, must be onelyonly to the Jews in Britain, if there were any here; But if it be understood of the Gentiles, (k)(k)Sirmond. de duobus Dionysiis, c. 1.Jac. Sirmondus saith in plain Terms, This Tradition contradicts the Scripture; For saith he, If the People of Marseilles (or Britain) had the Gospel Preached to them so soon, how comes it to pass, that six Years after, Cornelius is said to be the first Fruits of the Gentiles? And that upon the Incouragement of his Example, those of the Dispersion, began to Preach to the Gentiles at Antioch? Which is confessed by (l)(l)Bar. A. D. 41. n. 15.Baronius himself. The strength of which Argument hath prevailed so much in France, That the (m)(m)v. Launoii Opusc. de Lazaro, &c. p. 348.Defenders of this Tradition, have been there contented to let go the Reign of Tiberius, and to place it a great deal later, Anno Dom. 62. (n)(n)Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccles. Sac. 1. Part. 2. p. 80.For they evidently p. 4saw, there was no Possibility of defending it upon other Terms, although hereby they make Lazarus and Joseph of Arimathea of great Age, when they undertook this Voyage with their Companions: But when such a Tradition is either wholly rejected there, as disagreeing to the Scripture, or set so much later, on purpose to reconcile it with the Acts of the Apostles, it cannot but seem strange among us, that there should be such an Opinion still so generally received, That the Gospel should be here Preached before the end of the Reign of Tiberius.

But that which hath mis-led most of our Writers, hath been a passage in Gildas, which they have applyed to the particular Preaching of the Gospel in Britain, whereas it seems onelyonly to be understood of the General Liberty of Preaching it throughout the World, as will best appear by considering, not barely the Words, but the Circumstances of them. (o)(o)Gild. Epist. ed. Josselin. 1568.Gildas, having undertaken to give some Account of the ancient British Church in the beginning of his Epistle, In the first place, sadly laments the want of any Domestick Monuments, to give him certain information. For, saith he, If there were any such, they were either burnt by our Enemies, or carried so far by the Banishment of our Countreymen, that they no longer appear, and therefore he was forced to pick up what he could out of Foreign Writers, without any continued Series. From hence, he proceeds to speak of the Romans easie Conquest of Britain, but Difficult keeping of it, the Inhabitants being so unable to withstand the Romans, and yet so unwilling to obey them. Of which he gives a remarkable instance, in the Revolt under Boadicea, and the harder usage of the Britains after it. Interea, saith he,

Interea glaciali frigore rigenti Insulae, & veluti longiore terrarum recessu, soli visibili non proximae verus ille non de firmamento solum (L. Sol) temporali, sed de summa etiam coelorum arce tempora cuncta excedente universo orbi p. 5praefulgidum sui coruscum ostendens tempore (ut scimus) summo Tiberii Caesaris (quo absque ullo impedimento ejus propagabatur Religio comminata senatu nolente à Principe morte dilatoribus militum ejusdem) radios suos primum indulget, id est sua praecepta Christus. §. 6.

p. 4In the mean time, Christ the true Sun afforded his Rays, that is, the knowledge of his Precepts to this Island, shivering with Icy-cold, and separate at a great distance from the visible Sun, not from the visible Firmament, but from the Supreme everlasting p. 5Power of Heaven. For we certainly know, that in the latter end of the Reign of Tiberius, That Sun appear'd to the whole World with his Glorious Beams, in which time his Religion was propagated without any impediment against the Will of the Roman Senate, death being threatned by that Prince, to all that should inform against the Soldiers of Christ.

This I take to be Gildas his true meaning: For it is certain, he speaks of a double shining of the Gospel, one more General to the World, the other more particular to this Island: The former, he saith, was in the latter end of Tiberius; The latter was, Interea, In the mean time, of which he first speaks, and that refers back to the time he had spoken of before, which was the fatal Victory over Boadicea, and the Britains, by Suetonius Paulinus, and the slavery they underwent after it. Which happen'd in the time of Nero, about the middle of his Reign, almost twenty years after Claudius had sent A. Plautius to reduce Britain into the form of a Province, to whom succeeded P. Ostorius Scapula, A. Didius Gallus, and Veranius, in the Government of Britain, before Suctonius Paulinus came into the Pro vince. For after Claudius his Triumph for his Victory in Britain, the Romans began to deduce Colonies, to settle Magistrates and Jurisdictions here, after the manner of other Provinces, and so continual intercourse was maintained between the Roman City, and the British Colonies; Cities of Trade were set up, and the Roman Merchants were very busie in furnishing new Provinces with necessaries, and Superfluities: And the Province of Britain, in the beginning of Nero's Reign was thought to be in so settled, and flourishing a condition, that (p)(p)Xiphilin. in Neron.Dio saith, Seneca, had here at one time to the value of 300000. p. as Mr. Camden computes it. A vast sum for a Philosopher! But that which p. 6… from … That thi… wa… a very probable … ▪ which Gildas hath pu… had upon, for the bringing the Gospel luther, … between the … of A. Plautius coming over, in the time of Claudius, and the Battel between Boadicea, and Suetonius Paulinus, as will more fully appear in the following discourse. As to the more General shining of the Gospel to the World, he pitches upon the latter end of Tiberius, as the certain time of it, in which he makes use of the very Expressions of (q)(q)Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 2.Sir 50:2Eusebius, and that passage concerning Tiberius and the Senate differing about Christ and his followers, which Eusebius took from (r)(r)Tertul. Apolog. c. 5.Tertullian, who speaks of it with great assurance; And (s)(s)Oros. l. 7. c. 4.Orosius gives a more particular account of it, all which is very agreeable to what Gildas had said before, That he must make use of Foreign Writers in so great a defect of their own.

But to proceed clearly in this matter, there are three things I design, concerning the first planting a Christian Church here.

1. To examine the Tradition, concerning Joseph of Arimathea, and his Brethren coming hither to plant Christianity.

2. To shew that there was a Christian Church planted here, in the Apostles times, and within that compass Gildas speaks of.

3. To prove the great probability, that St. Paul first founded a Church here.

1. As to the Tradition concerning Joseph of Arimathea; I confess I look on it, as an Invention of the Monks of Glassenbury to serve their Interests, by advancing the Reputation of their Monastery. But because this Tradition hath met with better entertainment than it deserved, among the Generality of our late Writers, who take it for granted, and believe that it is grounded on the Testimony of ancient Records; I shall, before I proceed farther, take the pains to examine it, both as to the Authority, and the Circumstances of it.

It seems to be a little Suspicious, at first view, that so considerable a part of the Antiquities of this Church should be wholly past by, by the most ancient and inquisitive p. 7Writers of our …, So that neith…r the … Gildas, nor Bede, nor Asserius, nor Ma…anus S…lus, nor any of the ancient Annals should take the least notice of this Tradition. (t)(t)Sanders, p…f. ad Itla. de Schism. Anglit.Sanders indeed saith, That Polydore Virgil proves it from the most ancient Gildas, but he never attempted any such thing: For having set down the Tradition of Joseph of Arimathea, with the best advantage, he onelyonly proves from Gildas, That the Christian Religion was very early received here, which might be very true, although Joseph had never come from Arimathea. And yet, (v)(v)Bona, Rer. Liturgic. l. 1. c. 7.Card. Bona quotes Gildas for this Tradition, on the credit of Sanders, unless he were deceived by those who produce the Testimony of Gildas Albanius, in his Book of the Victory of Aurelius Ambrosius to the same purpose. But no such Book of the true Gildas could ever yet be found by those who have searched after it with the greatest diligence. (w)(w)Leland, de Scriptor. in Gilda.Leland particularly relates, concerning himself, What incredible pains he took to find out this piece of Gildas, and saith, That he hoped at last to have met with it in the Library at Glassenbury, where Gildas is said by William of Malmsbury, to have ended his days, but not a Leaf of it was to be seen, either there, or in any of the Old Libraries in Wales, which he searched on purpose. And after all, he refers us to the credit of (x)(x)Galt. Mon. l. 2. …. 1. ed. Bad… As.Geffrey of Monmouth for it, where it must rest, till some better Authority be produced for it: Yet Bale, and Pits, keep up the Title of it, as they do of many others which were never in being, as the Annals of Gildas Cambrius, the Epigrams of Claudia Rufina, and the Epistles of Joseph of Arimathea, &c. which Bale thinks probable, that he did Write, and therefore sets them down as Written: And from him a learned (y)(y)Watts Instrumento Historic. Manuscript.Antiquary reckons them among our Historical Antiquities. And no better Foundation can yet be discovered for this Book of Gildas, it being as probable, that he should write a Book of that Victory of Ambrosius, since Gildas saith, He was born upon the day of his obtaining it, if it were that on Badon Hill. But such Probabilities are very far from Testimonies. It is true, as the (z)(z)Primord. c. 5. p. 57.learned Primate observes, That Gervase of Tilbury, Nauclerus, Trithemius and many others, say, That Geffrey followed Gildas in such a p. 8Book written by him: But they produce no Authority for any such Book, but Geffrey himself, and untill some better appears, I must suspend my belief: It being common with such Writers as himself, to pretend to such Authorities, as no one else ever had the fortune to find. For it being their business to give an account of times long before their own, it were a vain thing to hope for any Credit, unless they could produce some Testimonies nearer those times, which might be of some weight if they were Authentick. And this is the Reason, why these Inventers of History have still given out, that they met with some Elder Writers, out of whom they have pretended to derive their Reports. Thus (a)(a)Apud Trithem. Compend. Annal. l. 1.Hunibaldus pretends, as much to follow the Old Sicambrian Manuscripts of Wasthald, for the remote Antiquities of the Franks, as Geffrey doth the Old British Manuscripts, either for the Succession of the British Kings, or the first bringing of Christianity hither. But which makes this matter yet stranger, (b)(b)Nen. c. 18.Nennius himself, who sometimes passes under the Name of Gildas, saith nothing of this Tradition, where he speaks of the first receiving of Christianity in Britain; and yet Bale saith of him, That he collected his Writings out of the former British Historians, such as Teliesin, Melkin, Gildas, and Elvodugus; and it is not probable, he would have left it out, if he had found it in any of them. But (c)(c)Bal. de Script. Brit. l. 1. p. 57.Bale quotes one of these British Authours, viz. Melkinus Avalonius for this Tradition about Joseph of Arimathea, and Arviragus; but withall he confesses him to be a very fabulous Writer. (d)(d)Leland, de Script. in Melkino.Leland saith, That he met with the Fragments of Melkinus in the Library at Glassenbury, by which he understood that he had written something of the British affairs, but more especially concerning the Antiquity of Glassenbury, and Joseph of Arimathea; Which, saith Leland, he affirms without any certain Authour, and which himself could not approve, not thinking it at all Credible, that Joseph of Arimathea should be buried there, but rather some Eremit of that Name, from whence the mistake first arose. And **Leland, in Flaan….elsewhere, when he speaks of the Glassenbury Tradition; He saith, That twelve Eremits are reported to have come thither, with one Joseph in the Head of them, but not be of Arimathea p. 9as he supposes. But still the Testimonies that concern this matter are derived from Glassenbury, insomuch that even the British Historian hath the name of Avalonius from thence. But some make use of this Testimony however to prove the Antiquity of this Tradition, since this Authour is said to have lived Anno Dom. 550. under King Vortuporius, so Bale; but Pits places him ten years later, under Magoclunus: They might as well have made him contemporary with Gildas Cambrius, or to have been Secretary to Joseph of Arimathea, when he wrote his Epistles, for they have no more Evidence to shew for the one than for the other. The truth is, there was an old Legend which lay at Glassenbury, which Leland saw, and out of which Capgrave hath transcribed that part which concerns this matter, from whom Bale took it. But it is so grosly fabulous, that even Capgrave himself (whose Stomach was not very nice as to Legends) put an &c. in the middle of it, as being ashamed to set down the passage of Abaddar, a great man in Saphat, and the hundred and four thousand which were buried with Joseph of Arimathea at Glassenbury. Yet this sensless and ridiculous Legend is by (e)(e)Spelman. Conc. Brit. To. 1. p. 11.some thought to be the British History which William of Malmsbury appeals to for the proof of this Tradition; and, which he found in the Libraries of St. Edmund and St. Augustin. But Malmsbury, having designed to set the Antiquity of Glassenbury as high as he could, called that a British History, which is now found to be written by an English Monk, as (f)(f)Usser. de Prim. p. 107.Archbishop Vsher hath evidently proved (having several times perused it in the Cotton Library) there being the very same passage in it which Malmsbury quotes. And that he was no Britain is most certain, because he calls the Saxon his Mother Tongue, and England his Countrey. And yet after all, there is not a word of Joseph of Arimathea or his Companions in it; all that is said is, That in the Western parts of Britain there is a Royal Island called Gleston, large and compassed about with Waters full of Fish, and having other conveniences of humane life; but, which was most considerable, it was devoted to the Service of God. Here the first Disciples of the Catholick Law found an ancient Church, p. 10not built as was reported by mens hands, but prepared by God himself for the benefit of Men, and which by Miracles was shewed to be consecrated to himself and to the Blessed Virgin. To which they adjoined another Oratory made of Stone, which they dedicated to Christ and to St. Peter. The question is, Who are here meant by these first Disciples of the Catholick Law? not Joseph of Arimathea and his Companions, who are never mentioned by him, and who are never said to have found a Church there built to their hands, but he speaks of some of the first Saxon Christians in those parts, who might probably find there such a low Wattled Church as is described in Sir H. (g)(g)Concil. Brit. p. 15.Spelman; a Remainder of the British Christianity in that Island. And this Passage affords us the best light into the true Original of this Tradition, which was after so much heightned and improved, as the Monks of Glassenbury thought convenient for the honour and privileges of their Monastery.

That which seems most agreeable to Truth from hence is, That in the latter times of the British Churches, when they were so miserably harassed and persecuted by the Pagan Saxons, they were forced to retire into places of most difficult access for their own Security, and there they made them such Churches as were suitable to their present condition, and lived very retired lives, being in continual fear of their barbarous Enemies. Such a place this Island of Avalon, or Glassenbury was; which might be of far greater request among the Britains, because it was the place where King Arthur was buried; for I see no reason to question that which Giraldus Cambrensis relates concerning the finding the Body of King Arthur there in the time of Henry II. with an Inscription on a Leaden Cross, which in Latin expressed, that King Arthur lay there buried in the Island of Avalon. For (h)(h)Girald. de Instit. Princ. & in Specul. Eccles.Giraldus saith, he was present, and saw the Inscription and the Body; which is likewise attested by the Historians of that time, as (i)(i)Leland, Collec. Vol. 2. p. 14. Assert. Arthuri, p. 28. &c.Leland proves at large. And the account given that his Body was laid so deep in the Earth, for fear of the Saxons, farther confirms, That this was a place of retreat in the British times, but p. 11not without the apprehension of their Enemies Invasion.

This Church, according to the Inscription on the Brass Plate on the Pillar in Glassenbury Church, was in length 60 Foot, in breadth 26. But that Inscription, as the learned and judicious Antiquary **Concil. Brit. p. 14.Sir H. Spelman observes, was by the Character not of above 300 years Antiquity, and savours very much of the Legend. In it we reade, That the Church was first built by Joseph and his Companions, but was consecrated by Christ himself to the Honour of his Mother. This being a very usefull point, but not very agreeing with the simplicity of the primitive Christians, wanted some more than ordinary confirmation, and such we are told it had. For St. David having a design to consecrate this Church, our Lord appeared to him in a Dream, and forbad him, having consecrated both the Church and Church-yard before himself. And, for a Sign thereof, he thrust his Finger through the Bishop's hand. Which it seems was to pass for the Token of a former Consecration. But, as much as this looks like a Monkish Legend, (k)(k)Annal. Eccl. A. D. 63. n. 29.Alford and (l)(l)Church Hist. l. 2. c. 8.Cressy are much displeased with Sir H. Spelman for calling it in question. But they who can in earnest believe, That Christ himself did then consecrate a Church and Church-yard to the honour of his Mother, are past all Confutation by reason, having their minds naturally framed to believe Legends; and to such, one Legend serves to confirm another; which is the way those persons take to confute Sir H. Spelman. For Cressy, to prove the Antiquity of dedicating Churches to the blessed Virgin, brings the Tradition of the Temple at Saragoça, called del Pilar, because the Pillar on which her Image was placed was brought thither by the Ministery of Angels. Now those things are thought Proofs by some, which to others look onelyonly like bringing one Absurdity to support another. But as yet we find no Testimony to confirm this Tradition, but what is taken from Glassenbury, which is not the best Witness in a Cause which so nearly concern'd it self.

But these now mentioned Authours (m)(m)Alford. ib. n. 29. Cressy, l. 2. c. 7.at last venture on a considerable Testimony, if it hold good, p. 12viz. of Augustin the Monk, in an Epistle to Gregory, but upon Examination, that which they quote out of St. Augustin's Epistle is nothing else but the passage already mentioned by Malmsbury, which he found in a Book taken out of the Library of St. Augustin at Canterbury; and they might as well have quoted St. Edmund's Epistle to the Pope to the same purpose. For William of Malmsbury saith, He met with the same passage at St. Edmund's as well as St. Augustin's, i. e. in the Libraries of those Monasteries; I will not dissemble that they cite two considerable (n)(n)Antiq. Brit. p. 3. Godwin, de Praesul. p. 12.Authours of our own for this mistake; I wish they had been as ready to have followed them where they were in the right, as where they were guilty of an oversight, which the most carefull Writers may sometimes fall into. But it is an unhappy temper to follow Great men onelyonly in their Errours and Imperfections.

So that upon the whole matter, we have not one Testimony which reaches to the point concerning Joseph of Arimathea, which is not originally taken from the Glassenbury Legends, where it seems there was great choice of them; For (o)(o)Capgr. in vita Josephi.Capgrave mentions several, one, out of which the Life of Joseph of Arimathea there is extracted, is said to be taken out of a Book which the Emperour Theodosius found in the Palace of Pilate at Jerusalem; which is a very hopefull Introduction to a Legend; And there we find the History of Joseph of Arimathea, very distinctly set down, How he was miraculously delivered out of Prison in Jerusalemand conveyed to Arimathea, whither the chief of the Jews sent a solemn Embassy to him of seven Persons, with an Epistle, wherein they beg Pardon for his Imprisonment, and desire his Company at Jerusalem, whither being come, upon their request, he gives an account of his Escape, the house being taken up by four Angels, and Christ appeared to him, and carried him to the place where he buried him, and shew'd him the Linen Cloth about his Head, after which he was baptized by Philip, and was present with him at the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and fifteen years after he came to Philip in Gaul, who sent him over into Britain with twelve of his Disciples p. 13and his Son Josephes. But an other Tradition saith, They were six hundred Men and Women who were to come over, having taken a Vow of Abstinence till they came to Land, which they did all break, but one hundred and fifty who passed the Sea upon the Shirt of Josephes, but the rest repenting, a Ship was sent to convey them over which was built by King Salomon, and with them came a Duke of the Medes called Nacianus, formerly baptized by Joseph in the City Saram, with the King of it called Mordraius, who valiantly killed a King of North-Wales, who kept Joseph a Prisoner; After which he and his Companions preached here in the time of Arviragus. And then follows the common Tradition, of his giving the Island of Avalon to them, and the twelve Hydes of Land by the three Pagan Kings, Arviragus, Marius and Coilus. This is followed by another Tradition out of the Acts of King Arthur, and the Inquisition of Lancelot de Lac; all which is concluded with the admirable Legend of Melkinus Avalonius already mentioned. These are the choice Materials in Capgrave's Collection to confirm this Tradition. And if he had found any better, he would no doubt have produced them. It must be confessed that Mr. Cressy, with some scorn, rejects that part of the Tradition taken out of the holy Graal about the six hundred Companions and the Prince of Media, &c. But I can find no better Authority for one part than for the other; and for all that I can see, the holy Graal deserves as much credit as the Book taken out of Pilat's Palace or Melkinus Avalonius, especially since (p)(p)Pits, de Script. A.D. 720.80.Pits hath given the supposed Author so good a place, among his British Writers, under the name of Eremita Britannus, and saith, he lived about the time of King Ina, Anno Dom. 720. And (q)(q)Apud Vincent. Spec. histor. l. 23. c. 147.Helinandus takes notice of the Vision to the British Eremit about that time concerning Joseph of Arimathea, and the Dish wherein our Saviour ate the Passover with his Disciples, which sort of Dish he saith was then called in French Graal; but others think the true name was Sangreal, being some of Christ's real bloud which he shed upon the Cross, which was said to be somewhere found by King Arthur. And to confirm p. 14this, it is said in the authentick Writing of Melkinus, That in the Coffin of Joseph were two Silver Vessels filled with the Bloud and Sweat of Jesus the Prophet.

But lest I should seem to expose so ancient a Tradition, by setting down onelyonly the fabulous Mixtures which the Monks thought to adorn it with, I now proceed from their Dreams and Visions, to what seems to have much more weight and authority in it, viz. their ancient Records which William of Malmsbury seems most to rely upon: Among these, In the first place he mentions the Charter of St. Patrick, as he calls it, which is at large printed in the (r)(r)Monastic. vol. 1. p. 11.Monasticon, and both in (s)(s)Alford. A. D. 439. n. 9.Alford and (t)(t)Cressy's Hist. l. 2. c. 5. n. 10.Cressy, and is magnified by them as a substantial proof of the Glassenbury Tradition, which Cressy saith was transcribed out of a very ancient MS. belonging to Glassenbury by Marianus Victorius; and for this he quotes (u)(u)Vossi. de Histor. Latinis, l. 2. c. 16.Ger. Vossius de Hist. Lat. who saith onelyonly 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, (w)(w)Miscellan. S. Patr. ad calc. Oper. Greg. Thaumaturg.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 p. 15obtained 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 (x)(x)Bucherius Belg. Roman. l. 2. c. 8. n. 4.Bucherius till about the time of Charles the Great. **Rer. Aleman. To 3. l. 2. p. 32.Joachim Vadianus, saith, He never saw the Year of our Lord in any ancient Charters, of which sort he had seen many: (y)(y)Papebroch. Propyl. ad To. 2. Apr. §. 102.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. (z)(z)Aventinus Annal. Boior. l. 4. p. 461.Joh. Aventinus affirms, that the use of it in Epistles and Charters, was brought in by Carolus Crassus, with whom (a)(a)Chronic. Burg. ad A. D. 885.Nic. Vignier agrees, as to the Imperial Diplomata. But it seems probable, to have been brought into England before that time, for in the (b)(b)Spelman. Concil. p. 330. c. 9.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 (c)(c)Mabillon de Re Diplom. l. 2. c. 2. p. 17. §. 23. n. 15.Mabillon: Who thinks, That p. 16Bede 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 (d)(d)Gul. Malms. de Gestis Pontif. l. 2. p. 145.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 (e)(e)Capgr. vit. Patricii.Capgrave himself mentions it not without doubt, and Suspicion of the truth of it: And his own Brethren (f)(f)Acta Sanct. Mart. 17. vit. S. Patricii Proleg. §. 10. n. 72.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: p. 17So 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 (g)(g)Monastic. vol. 1. p. 12.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 two Reasons which seem to me to have weight in them.

1. Because it refers to other ancient Charters of that Church, as to the Exemption of the Monastery. And the Benedictin Monks have a long time lain under so great a Suspicion, among those of their Religion, as to this matter of forging Charters of Exemption, that no prudent Persons will think those a sufficient Foundation to build their Faith upon, as to any ancient History, which must depend upon their Credibility. I shall not here mention what Gallonius, Launoy, Naude, and others abroad have said upon this Subject, nor what insufficient Answers. (h)(h)Mabillon de Re Diplomat. l. 3. c. 3.Mabillon hath lately made to their Objections; but it is reasonable for us to consider, how much they have been Charged here at home with this Crime, by the Bishops of this Church, and how ill they have been able to defend themselves. It appears by the Epistle of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, to Alexander the Third, in (i)(i)Petr. Blesens. Ep. 68.Petrus Blesensis, that there was a general Suspicion of Forgery in the Charters of Exemptions, which the Monasteries pretended to, Vt falsitas in omnium ferè Monasteriorum exemptione praevaleat, &c. And he there particularly instanceth in the Bishop of Salisbury, charging the Abbat of p. 18Malmsbury, with producing false Charters for his Exemption from the Bishop's Right of Election: But which is yet more considerable, in the time of Gregory the ninth, when St. Edmond was Archbishop of Canterbury, some Monks of Canterbury were Convicted of Forging a certain Charter of Privileges: But the Pope's Legate took up the business, and procured a Dispensation from the Pope, which put an end to the Cause. Which Dispensation Dr. (k)(k)Of Vse and Custome p. 93.Casaubon declares to the World, He read in an Old Manuscript belonging to the Church of Canterbury, wherein it was Registred: And wherein, as both he and Sr. Henry (l)(l)Spelman. Concil. p. 125.Spelman, tell us, It is observ'd, That that Church enjoy'd all its Lands and Privileges, onelyonly by Custome and Prescription, sine Cartis vel Munimentis Regiis, without any written Charters, untill Anno Dom. 694. When Withred King of Kent caused the first to be written, which was the same with the Council of Becanceld. From hence Sr. Henry Spelman gives a prudent Caution, concerning the most ancient Charters, which the Monks pretended to, that they be not easily believed: There being so much Suspicion of Fraud in them. And that not onelyonly now, but was so of Old, as appears by what (m)(m)Gervas. Doro. A.D. 1181. inter 10. Script. 1458.Gervase reports of the Monks of St. Augustin, That they produced very Suspicious, and rased Charters. The Case was this, the Monks of St. Augustine pretended an Exemption from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as those of Glassenbury did from that of the Bishop of Wells; upon an Appeal to Rome, a Commission was granted to the Bishop of Durham, and the Abbat of St. Albans to inspect their Charters, and to let the Archbishop examine them: But after great Tergiversation, they at last produced two Writings, which they called their Originals; The first was ancient, but rased and subscribed, as if it were amended and without a Seal, which they called King Ethelbert's Charter. The other was of much later Writing, with a Leaden Bull hanging at it, and the Figure of a Bishop upon it, which they called St. Augustine's Charter. Against the First, The Rasure was objected, and the manner of Subscription, and want of a Seal. Against the Second, The lateness of the Writing, and the novelty of hanging Leaden Bulls to Charters, especially by Bishops p. 19on this side of the Alpes: And besides, the Style was very different from the Roman. Both these Charters are extant in the (n)(n)Monastic. p. 23, 24, 25.Monasticon, and a third of Ethelbert, with an Inspeximus of 36 Edw. III. But another Charter of Ethelbert is set down together with these in the (o)(o)Chronic. MS. in Bibl. A. T. C.MS. Chronicle of St. Augustin's, the Authour whereof was certainly a Monk there, being so zealously concern'd to defend these Charters, and to answer some of the former Objections against them. As to the want of a Seal to Ethelbert's Charter, he answers truly, That hanging Seals upon Wax were not then used, but onelyonly a Subscription of the Name of the person with a Sign of the Cross before it, in token of their Conversion. For (p)(p)Ingulph. Hist. p. 512. ed. Sav.Ingulphus, a very competent Witness, declares, that the ancient English Charters to the time of Edward the Confessour were attested by Witnesses who set their Names with Golden Crosses, or other Marks before them. But the Normans brought in the use of Seals by Impressions upon Wax. But that MS. Authour will not allow the use of such Seals, till after the Conquest, except in the time of Cnut, who was a stranger. Whereas in the Contest between the Bishop of Lincoln and the Abbat of St. Albans, before Henry II. When the (q)(q)Vit. Abbat. S. Alban. p. 79, 80.Saxon Charters were disputed for want of Seals, the other Party knew not what to answer; But the King insisted on their Confirmation by Henry I. And the Monk, who writes the account of this Proceeding, alledgeth the Seal of Edward the Confessour to the Church of Westminster: But Edward brought in several Norman Customs, as Ingulphus shews, against the practice of his Predecessours. And this the Normans borrow'd from the French, whose Seals were generally affixed on the right side of the Charter, and not pendent with Labels, as they began to be about the Reign of Lewis VI. as (r)(r)Mabill. de Re Diplonat. l. 2. c. 16. n. 10, 12.Mabillon hath shewed at large. And so some of our Learned (s)(s)Antiquit. Britan. in Anselmo.Antiquaries have thought, that pendent Seals were not brought into use here, till the time of Edw. I. For in a Charter of Henry I. granted to Anselm, the great Seal was affixed on the left side of the Parchment. And (t)(t)Antiquit. Oxon. l. 1. §. 81.Brian Twyne affirms that he saw a Charter of William the Conquerour so sealed in the Lumley Library. But that this Observation is not certain, p. 20appears by contrary Instances, as of the Pendent Seal to the Charter of Battel Abbey, printed by (u)(u)Seld. Not. ad Eadmer. p. 166.Mr. Selden; and of the Charter of Henry II. to Glassenbury Abbey, which (w)(w)De Antiq. Cant. Academ. l. 1. p. 54.Dr. Caius saith he saw with a Seal of green Wax hanging to it by a string of red and white Silk. But from hence we may see how dangerous it is to make general Rules, as to these matters, from some particular Examples, when the Custome might vary. And, notwithstanding the Testimony of Ingulphus, there might be Seals sometimes used to Charters though not so frequently. Mr. (x)(x)Seld. of the Office of Lord Chancellor, ch. 2.Selden hath produced some Instances to that purpose, as in that of King Edgar to the Abbey of Persore, which he saith had plain Signs of three-Labels by the places cut for their being hanged on; which is attested in a Letter from Godfrey, Archdeacon of Worcester, to Alex. III. And among the Chartae antiquae, There are some, saith he, cum Sigillo; and one particularly cum Sigillo of King Cnout, which very much confirms what this Historian observes concerning Canutus his using a Seal. And our great (y)(y)Inst. f. 7. a.Lawyer hath produced the Deeds of King Edwin, Brother to King Edgar, and of King Offa, with 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, p. 21being 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 onelyonly on the account of the Leaden Bull (which (z)(z)Polyd. Virg. de Invent. l. 8. c. 2.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 (a)(a)Apud Leon. Allat. de Consens. Eccles. Orient. & Occident. l. 1. c. 6. n. 2.Dom. Raynaldus are confessed to be suspicious by (b)(b)Mabillon. de Re Diplomat. l. 2. c. 14. n. 9.Mabillon himself) but there are several things in it which in (c)(c)Spelman. Concil. p. 124.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 (d)(d)Isid. Orig. l. 7. c. 12.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, p. 22That Title belong'd to them who had power over Metropolitans as well as other Bishops, and it was not before the ninth Age, as (e)(e)Mabill. l. 2. …. …. n. 1….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 (f)(f)Propulae. ad Monast. Angl.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 (g)(g)Papebroch. Propyl. ad To. 2. Apr. c. 10. n. 125.Papebrochius; but (h)(h)Mabillon. l. 1. c. 4. l. 3. c. 2.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: l. 3. c. 6. n. 10.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, l. 1. c. 4. n. 4.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 p. 23him 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 onelyonly 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, (i)(i)Galfrid. l. c. p. 101. ed. Bad. Ascens.Geffrey of Monmouth makes him Grandchild to Cadwallader. And the (k)(k)LL. Ed. Confess. c. 35.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 (l)(l)Propyl. ad To. 2. Apr. c. 8. n. 103.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 p. 24given 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 (m)(m)Thorn. Chronic. c. 14. § 3.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 p. 25a 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 (n)(n)Monastic. Vol. 1. p. 146.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 p. 26fighting 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 (o)(o)W. Malmsbur. de Gest. Pontif. l. 4. p. 162.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 onelyonly 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 Glassenbury; I do not question that King Ina did found a Monastery there, where before had been an ancient Church in the British times. But I see no ground to believe, that either Joseph of Arimathea, or St. Patrick, or St. David had ever been there. But these were great and well sounding Names to amuse the People with, and by degrees advanced that Monastery to so high a Reputation, that the very Monks of other places were concerned to lessen the authority of this Tradition, as is evident by the (p)(p)Chron. S. August. MS. in Bibl. A. T. C.MS. Chronicle of St. Augustine's, wherein the Monks of Glassenbury are charged with pretending to greater authority than they had reason for, that Monastery being first founded by King Ina, but they give out they had Land given p. 27by Arviragus a King of the Britains. And even (q)(q)Malmsbury. de Gestis Pontif. l. 2. p. 145.William of Malmsbury, although when he writes the Antiquities of Glassenbury, he seems firmly to believe Saint Patrick's being there, yet when he comes elsewhere to speak of his being buried there, he adds that cooling Expression, Si credere dignum, and takes not the least notice of Joseph of Arimathea and his Companions. So much difference he thought there ought to be between writing the Legend of a Monastery and a true History. And there he plainly affirms, that King Ina was the first Founder of it. To which (r)(r)Asserii Annales, MS. A.D. 726.Asserius agrees in an ancient MS. Copy of his Annals. For A. D. 726. he saith, Ina went to Rome, and there died, having built and dedicated a Monastery in Glassenbury. But what Presumption was it to say, He dedicated it, if it were dedicated so long before by Christ himself, as the Vision of St. David and the Glassenbury Tradition affirm? I do not then deny that there was an ancient Church before Ina's time, which after the Western Saxons became Christians, grew into mighty Reputation, but all the Succession of Abbats before, either of Worgresius, or Brightwaldus, or others, I look on as fabulous. For (s)(s)Bed. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9.Sir 50:5Bede and others say, Brightwaldus was Abbat of Reculver before he was Archbishop; which is a good distance from Glassenbury. But the first Abbat there was Hemgislus, to whom Ina granted a Charter; after him Beorwaldus, to whom King Ina granted several Lands by Charters, far more probable than this large one, whose authority I have hitherto discussed. Those Charters are short, and the Style agreeable to those times, and not one Word of Joseph of Arimathea, or St. Patrick, or St. David, in any of them. And those, I believe, were the original Charters of that Abbey.

But the Abbey being thus founded and well endowed, then, like a man that hath made his own Fortunes, who pretends to be derived from some ancient Stock, so this Monastery growing rich betimes, saw it must be cast much behind in Place and Dignity, unless it could lay claim to some greater Antiquity. And for this, the old British Church was an admirable Foundation. And St. Patrick and St. David, being two Saints p. 28of wonderfull esteem in Ireland and Wales, they first set up with the Reputation of their being at Glassenbury, the former lying buried there, and the latter building a little Chapel. The Monks finding the advantage of these Pretences, made a farther step towards the advancement of their Monastery, by giving out that their old Church was the first Church in Britain, and that all Religion came from thence into other parts, which by degrees gaining belief, they at last pitched upon Joseph of Arimathea, as the person who came first hither, being a Man whose Name was every where in great esteem for the respect he shew'd to our Saviour's Body: And him they thought they might safely pitch upon, not being pretended to by any other Church. But it was a considerable time before the Name of Joseph of Arimathea came to be mention'd, not being found in any of the Saxon Charters, which speak most to the advantage of Glassenbury; as may be seen by those of King (t)(t)Monastic. Vol. 1. p. 15, 16.Edmond and King Edgar in the Monasticon. But by the time of Henry II. the Tradition was generally received, that the old Church at Glassenbury was built by the Disciples of our Lord; and that it was the original Church of this Nation, as appears by the Charter of Henry II. omitted in the Monasticon, but printed by (v)(v)Harpsfield. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 2.Sir 50:1Harpsfield, and the learned Primate of (w)(w)Usser. Primord. p. 122, 123.Armagh, by which we see what Authority the Monks of Glassenbury had then obtained, for not onelyonly this Tradition is inserted in the Charter, as a thing certain, but a Repetition is there made of several other Charters, as seen and read before the King, which were undoubtedly counterfeit, such as that of King Arthur, and several others; yet all these went down then, and were confirmed by the King's Inspeximus. From this time the Monks of Glassenbury were triumphant, and no one durst dispute their Traditions how improbable soever. This Charter being confirmed by the Inspeximus of Edw. II. An. 6, 7. of Edw. III. An. 1, 6. and 1 Edw. IV. And from hence it grew to be the common opinion of the Nation, and was pleaded for the honour of it in the Councils of Pisa, Constance, Siena and Basil, of which the (x)(x)Id. p. 23, &c.Primate hath given a full account, and, as things passed among them then, p. 29Our Nation had as just Right to insist on their Tradition of Joseph of Arimathea, as the Spaniards on that of St. James going into Spain; for certainly one Tradition was as good as the other.

But having thus far examined the Authority of this Tradition, I now come to consider the Circumstances of it. And supposing the Testimonies to confirm it to have been of far greater Authority than I find them, yet the very improbable Circumstances of the Story it self would be a sufficient reason for me to pass it over (leaving every one to believe as much of it as he sees cause) viz.

(1.) The Tradition of the Church mentioned by (y)(y)Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.Eusebius, (z)(z)Sophron. de Script. Eccles.Sophronius, (a)(a)Chrys. de 12 Apost.S. Chrysostome, and (b)(b)Hippolyt. de 12 Apost.Hippolytus Portuensis, That Saint Philip continued Preaching in the Eastern parts, about Phrygia, and suffer'd at Hierapolis.

(2) The Eremitical course of their Lives so wholly different from that of the Apostles, and other Disciples of our Lord, in an Age of so much business and employment in Preaching the Gospel, who went from one City and Countrey to another for that End.

(3.) The building of the Church by a Vision of the Archangel, and devoting it and themselves to the Blessed Virgin, favours too grosly of Monkish Superstition to be near the time pretended.

(4.) The Consecrating a Church-yard together with a Church, in order to the burial of persons in it at that time, is none of the most probable Circumstances, and yet it is a material one, Quod ipse Dominus Ecclesiam simul cum Coemeterio dedicarat. (c)(c)Spelman. Concil. p. 11.Sir H. Spelman observes, That the custome of compassing Churches, with Church-yards, was not so ancient: And withall he adds, That although the British Cities had Churches from the beginning of Christianity, yet there were no burying places within Cities, till Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, obtain'd leave for it, about Anno Dom. 758. Upon this (d)(d)Annal. A.D. 63. n. 26.Alford and (e)(e)Church History, l. 2. ch. 8. n. 5.Cressy charge him with a manifest mistake and great p. 30impertinency. 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 (f)(f)Chronic. MS. Tit. 12.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 (g)(g)Monastic. Vol. 1. p. 24.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 onelyonly 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, (h)(h)Spelman. Concil. p. 290.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 (i)(i)Tacit. vit. Agric. c. 14.Tacitus saith, it was done as to the nearest part of the Island, when p. 31A. 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 (k)(k)Sueton. in Vesp. c. 4.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 (l)(l)Tacit. Annal. 12. c. 30.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 (m)(m)Camd. Britan. p. 375.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 p. 32the Enemies to the Romans lived on the Roman side? Tacitus indeed mentions an Expedition of Ostorius against the Cangi, whom (n)(n)Britan. p. 68.Camden sometimes thought a small People among the Belgae, but upon better consideration, (o)(o)Brit. p. 463.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.

(p)(p)R. Whit. Basing. l. 4. p. 293.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 (q)(q)Galsr. Mon. l. 1. c. 25, 26.British History, where pleasant Stories are told of him, and from thence in (r)(r)Matt. West. A. D. 44.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 p. 33this 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 claríque Triumphi,Satyr. 4. v. 125.

Regem aliquem capies, aut de Temone Britanno

Excidet Arviragus

The (s)(s)Chron. Dover. apud Leland. Collect. vol. 2. p. 50.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 (t)(t)Tacit. Agric. c. 17, 18, 20.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 p. 34these 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? (u)(u)D. Powel. in Catal. Reg. Brit.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 onelyonly two Daughters, what becomes then of his Son Marius? whom (w)(w)White Hist. Brit. l. 4. p. 384.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. (x)(x)Alford. Annal. Eccles. A. D. 45. n. 9.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 (y)(y)Usser. Prim. p. 583.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, p. 35and built the first Wall, to keep them out of the Roman Province. For, before this, (z)(z)Spartian. in Hadriano.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 (a)(a)Alford. A. D. 53. n. 7.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 (b)(b)Church History, l. 2. ch. 1. n. 9.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 (c)(c)Baron. A.D. 1. n. 12.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 p. 36and 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 the History of all Churches, designing an Ecclesiastical History out of the Collections he made. The Testimony of a Person so qualified cannot but deserve great Consideration, especially, when it is not delivered by way of Report, but when the force of an Argument depends upon it. And (d)(d)Euseb. Demonst. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. p. 113.Eusebius, in his third Book of Evangelical Demonstration, undertakes to prove, that the Apostles, who first preached the Gospel to the World, could be no Impostours or Deceivers; and, among other Arguments, he makes use of this, That although it were possible for such men to deceive their Neighbours and Countreymen with an improbable Story, yet what madness were it for such illiterate men, who understood onelyonly their Mother Tongue, to go about to deceive the World by preaching this Doctrine in the remotest Cities and Countries? And having named the Romans, Persians, Armenians, Parthians, Indians, Scythians; he adds particularly, that some passed over the Ocean foreign, to those which are called the British Islands. From whence he concludes, that some more than humane power did accompany the Apostles, and that they were no light or inconsiderable men, much less Impostours and Deceivers. Now unless this had been a thing very well known at that time, that Christianity was planted here by the Apostles, why should he so particularly and expresly mention the British Islands? It cannot be said that they are onelyonly set down to denote the most remote and obscure places. For, long before that time, p. 37the British Islands were very well known all over the Roman Empire, Britain having been the Scene of many Warlike Actions from Claudius his time; The Occasion of Emperours additional Titles and Triumphs; The Residence of Roman Lieutenants and Legions; The Place of many Roman Colonies, Cities and Ways: But especially, about Constantine's time, It was the talk of the World, for the Revolt of Carausius and Allectus; The Victory and Death of Constantius here; The Succession of Constantine, and his being declared Emperour by the Army in Britain. So that scarce any Roman Province was so much interested in the several Revolutions of the Empire as Britain, and therefore Constantine going from hence, and being so much in the esteem of Eusebius, it is not to be conceived, that he should speak these Words at random, but that he had made a diligent Enquiry both of Constantine himself, to whom he was well known, and of others of his Court, concerning the State of the British Churches, of what continuance they were, and by whom planted. After all which Eusebius affirms it with so much assurance, That some of the Apostles preached the Gospel in the British Islands.

Much to the same purpose (e)(e)Theodoret. To. 4. Serm. 9. p. 610.Theodoret speaks, another learned and judicious Church Historian. For among the Nations converted by the Apostles, he expresly names the Britains; and elsewhere saith, (f)(f)To. 1. in Psal. 116. p. 870.Ps 116That St. Paul brought Salvation to the Islands that lie in the Ocean, after he had mention'd Spain, and therefore in all probability the British Islands are understood by him. And in another place (g)(g)In 2 ep. ad Tim. 4. v. 17.he saith, That St. Paul, after his Release at Rome, went to Spain, and from thence carried the Light of the Gospel to other Nations. What other Nations so likely to be understood as those which lay the nearest, and are elsewhere said to be converted by the Apostles, as the Britains are by him? St. (h)(h)Hieron. in Amos. c. 5.Amos 5Jerome saith, That St. Paul, having been in Spain, went from one Ocean to another, imitating the motion and course of the Sun of Righteousness, of whom it is said, his going forth is from the end of Heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; And that his diligence in Preaching extended as far as the Earth it self. Which are p. 38more indefinite Expressions. But elsewhere he saith, (i)(i)De Script. Eccles.That St. Paul, after his Imprisonment, preached the Gospel in the Western parts; By which the British Islands were especially understood; As will appear by the following Testimony of (k)(k)Clem. Epist. ad Corinth. p. 8.Clemens Romanus, who saith, St. Paul preached Righteousness through the whole World, and in so doing went foreign, to the utmost bounds of the West. Which Passage will necessarily take in Britain, if we consider what was then meant by the Bounds of the West. Plutarch, in the Life of Caesar, speaking of his Expedition into Britain, saith, He was the first who brought a Fleet into the Western Ocean; By which he understands the Sea between Gaul and Britain. And (l)(l)Euseb. vit. Const. l. 1. c. 25, 41. l. 2. c. 2….Eusebius several times calls the British Ocean, the Western, and joins the British Ocean and the Western parts together. And (m)(m)Euseb. de Martyr Palaest. c. 13.elsewhere he mentions Gaul and the Western parts beyond it; by which he understands Britain. And (n)(n)Theod. Hist. Religios. c. 26. p. 881.Theodoret reckons up the Inhabitants of Spain, of Britain and Gaul, (who, saith he, lie between the other two) as those who dwell in the bounds of the West; And among these the Britains must be in the utmost bounds, because the Gauls lie in the midst. (o)(o)Herod. l. 4. p. 273.Herodotus saith, the Celtae are the most Western of all the Europeans. Now the ancient Greek Geographers knew of but two Nations in Europe besides themselves, the Celtae and the Scythae; these latter comprehended all in the most Northern parts of Europe, and the Celtae the Western; And among these the remotest were the Britains. Thence (p)(p)Horat Carm. l. 1. c. 35.Horace calls them, Vltimos Orbis Britannos; As (q)(q)Catull. ad Aur.Catullus before him, Vltimósque Britannos. For before the discovery of Britain, the Morini, who lived over against it, were said to be the utmost People of the Earth. So (r)(r)Aeneid. l. 8.Virgil calls them, Extremos hominum Morinos. And (s)(s)Plin. l. 19. c. 1.Pliny, Vltimíque hominum existimati Morini. Aethicus saith they were, Gentes Oceani Occidentalis. But Britain being throughly made known in the time of Claudius, The utmost bounds of the West must be understood of Britain, especially since (t)(t)Catull. ad Caesar.Catullus calls Britain, Vltimam Occidentis Insulam. And (u)(u)Arnob. in Psal. 147.Ps 147Arnobius setting down the bounds of the Gospel East and West, for the East he mentions the Indians, and for the West the p. 39Britains. I cannot but wonder what so Learned a man as (w)(w)Launoy de loco Sulpic. Severi, § 20. p. 123.Joh. Launoy means, when, being urged by his Adversaries with this place of Clemens his Epistle to prove the Apostolical Antiquity of the Gallican Churches, He fairly rejects the authority of this Epistle, which hath been so universally received by all Learned men since the first publishing of it. But then he argues well, that if this passage holds for Gaul, it will much more hold for Britain. So that from this undoubted Testimony of Clemens it follows, not onelyonly, That the Gospel was preached in Britain in the times of the Romans, but, That St. Paul himself was the Preacher of it. Which is affirmed by (x)(x)Ven. Fortunat. vit. St. Martini, l. 3.Venantius Fortunatus, where he describes St. Paul's labours.

Transit & Oceanum, vel quà facit Insula Portum,

Quásque Britannus habet terras quásque ultima Thule.

But because this may look onelyonly like a Poetical Expression,

(3.) To make this out more fully, I shall consider the concurrent probability of Circumstances, together with these Testimonies. And I shall make it appear, (1.) From St. Paul's Circumstances, that he had Leisure and Opportunity enough to have come hithe… (2.) From the Circumstances of Britain, that here was incouragement and invitation enough for him to come. (3.) From the Circumstances of the rest of the Apostles, That he was the most likely to come hither of any of them.

(1.) That St. Paul had Leisure and Opportunity enough to come hither to preach the Gospel. It is agreed by (y)(y)Euseb. in Chron.Eusebius, St. (z)(z)Hieron. in Catal.Jerome, and others of the Ancients, That St. Paul suffer'd at Rome, 14th. of Nero. (a)(a)Baron. A. D. 69. n. 1.Baronius saith, the 13th. reckoning the years of Nero exactly from the beginning of his Reign in October; But (b)(b)Petav. de Doctr. Temp. l. 11. c. 14.Petavius saith, That the Ancients reckon'd the years according to the usual custome of a civil year. So that the 13th. of Nero's Reign is the 14th. from the Calends of January. St. Paul was sent to Rome, when Festus was made Procuratour of Judaea, in the room of Felix, p. 40which was, say Eusebius and St. Jerome, in the second of Nero; And I see no reason to question it; For although Felix succeeded Cumanus in the Government of Judaea, who was not condemned till the 12th. of Claudius (from whence to the second of Nero cannot be reckon'd those many years (c)(c)Act. 24.10.Acts 24:10St. Paul saith he had been Governour among the Jews) yet we are to consider, that Felix was not sent immediately from Rome, as (d)(d)Baron. A. D. 50. n. 8.Baronius mistakes, but upon Cumanus his Sentence, had his former Government inlarged. Judaea being then added to his Province, and part of the Province which he had before being given to Agrippa, as (e)(e)Joseph. de Bell. Iud. l. 2. c. 11.Josephus saith; So that part of Galilee and Samaria having been under his Government before, Saint Paul might well say, he had been a Ruler among them many years, although he were dismissed in the second of Nero. And although (f)(f)Tacit. Annal. 12. c. 54.Tacitus saith, That Felix had been a long time Governour of Judaea, yet it appears, by the distribution of the Province between Cumanus and him, That before Cumanus his Banishment, that which was properly Judaea fell not to his share; And it is not probable that his Government should outlast the Favour of Pallas with Nero, which mightily declined in his second year. After Saint Paul's coming to Rome, Saint Luke saith, he abode there (g)(g)Act. 28.30.Acts 28:30two years. But (h)(h)Massut. de vit. S. Pauli, l. 13. c. 1.Massutius observes from the Circumstances of Saint Paul's Voyage, That he could not come to Rome till the third of Nero. So that he could not have his liberty till the fifth, upon occasion of the Favours shew'd, as he conjectures, to Prisoners and Exiles on the Murther of Agrippina. But from this time to his returning to Rome, he went up and down Preaching the Gospel. To which time (i)(i)Vie de St. Paul, l. 2. p. 286.Godeau, in his Life of Saint Paul, allows eight years: (k)(k)Massut. ib. c. 67.Massutius rather more; (l)(l)Baron. A. D. 61. n. 2.Baronius the same; And he saith, it was time enough for him to pass through the whole World; Which Massutius repeats after him. The Question now is, Where Saint Paul employ'd all this time? The Ancient Writers of the Church generally say, in the Western parts; so Clemens, Theodoret, St. Jerome, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and others. But I need not to insist on particular Testimonies, since the onelyonly Learned (m)(m)L. Cappell. ad Hist. Apostol. Appen. p. 29.Person who p. 41hath opposed this Opinion doth ingenuously confess it to have been the common and received Opinion of all the Fathers. And I see no reason, by any thing he hath produced, to recede from it. For suppose we should grant, that he went back into the Eastern parts, and visited the Churches there, some part of this time; yet there is enough still left for St. Paul to Preach the Gospel in Britain and other Western parts, as the Fathers say that he did. And if we compare the time spent by St. Paul in his former Travels in the East, and allow him to use an equal diligence afterwards, there cannot appear any improbability that he should come into Britain, and establish a Christian Church here. Three Peregrinations of St. Paul we have an Account of in the Acts of the Apostles, before his Voyage to Rome. The (n)(n)Act. 13.14.Acts 13:14first is of him and Barnabas, from Antioch to Seleucia, Cyprus, Perga, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe of Lycaonia; from whence they returned back and settled the Government of the Churches then planted by them. And although it be said (o)(o)Act. 14.3, 8.Acts 14:3Acts 14:8that they abode long at Iconium and Antioch, yet (p)(p)Massut. l. 4. c. 9.Massutius shews, That this whole Peregrination took up but five years: Which is as much as (q)(q)Baron. A. D. 46. n. 12.Baronius allows from the beginning of it, to the Council of Jerusalem. For that he placeth in the 4th of Claudius, and this in the 9th. But (r)(r)A.D. 49. n. 1.he makes their return to Antioch in the 7th, so that he allows but three years to the founding and settling so many Churches. After the Council at Jerusalem, Saint Paul takes another Progress from Antioch, and went through (s)(s)Act. 15.41.Acts 15:41Syria and Cilicia, from thence to Derbe and Lystra; and so through Phrygia, and Galatia, and Mysia; and then from Troas crossed the Sea into Macedonia, where he first Preached at Philippi, a Roman Colonie: And from thence passed to Thessalonica, and so to Berrhoea, Athens and (t)(t)Act. 18.11, 18,Acts 18:11Acts 18:18Corinth, where he tarried a year and six months and more, and then failed into Syria, and made haste to Jerusalem, 22.and so returned to Antioch. This second Progress (u)(u)Baron. A. D. 51. n. 56.Baronius reckons from the ninth of Claudius to the twelfth, and half the time was spent at Corinth. The third was again from Antioch over all the Countrey of Galatia and Phrygia, to which (w)(w)Baron. A. D. 54. n. 1. Act. 18.23.Acts 18:23Baronius allows a years time; And the p. 42next he fixes at Ephesus, where St. Paul saith he (x)(x)Act. 20.31.Acts 20:31tarried three years (not exactly, but the far greatest part of it, having taught (y)(y)Act. 19.8, 10.Acts 19:8Acts 19:10three months in the Synagogue, and two years in the School of Tyrannus.) From Ephesus he goes into Macedonia and Achaia, and having abode there three months, he returned through Macedonia to Troas, and from thence went to Miletus, whither he sent for the Elders of the Church, and took his solemn leave of them, saying, (z)(z)Act. 20.2….38.Acts 20:2Acts 20:38that they should see his Face no more. From Miletus he passed to Phoenicia, and so to Jerusalem, where he was kept two years in custody, and then sent by Festus to Rome. This is a short account of St. Paul's labours and diligence in Preaching the Gospel before his Imprisonment at Rome. And we cannot suppose a Person of such indefatigable Industry and Pains, should lie still so many years after. It is certain he thought he should never return more to the Eastern parts, when he said so solemnly, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God, shall see my Face no more. Which Words do not onelyonly concern the Church of Ephesus, but all the other Churches planted by him in the East; And this he speaks not as his fear or conjecture, but out of certain Knowledge. And therefore it is not probable he should return into the East, nor, if he did, would this hinder his coming into these parts afterwards, where he might plant Churches within that time. But it is objected, That there are no certain Monuments of such Churches planted by him in Italy, Gaul, Germany or Spain. What certain Monuments are there of new Churches planted by him in the East after his return? And it is so much less probable, because the Eastern Writers, who should know best, allot this time to his Preaching in the West. But it is well observed by the Learned (a)(a)M. Velser. Rer. Vindel. l. 6.M. Velserus, speaking of the Preaching of the Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, in these Western parts, That we are not to judge of the Planting of Churches by the remaining Annals and Monuments, because on the one side we are certain that their sound went out into all the Earth: And on the other, great care was taken in the several Persecutions, especially that of Dioclesian, to burn all the Monuments which concerned the p. 43Christian Churches. But yet, as to Britain, we have undoubted Testimony of a Christian Church planted here by the Apostles, and by none so probably as Saint Paul. For Gildas saith, The Gospel was here received before the fatal defeat of the Britains by Suetonius Paulinus; which, according to Sir H. Savil's Fasti, was the seventh of Nero, the eighth saith Petavius: And St. Paul being at liberty the fifth, had time and conveniency enough to settle a Christian Church in Britain.

(2.) That there was Incouragement and Invitation enough for St. Paul to come into Britain, not onelyonly from the Infinite numbers of People, which, (b)(b)Caesar. l. ….Caesar saith, were here in his time, but from the new Settlements that were daily making here by the Romans, after the first Success, which they had in the time of Claudius: For then Colonies were drawn over hither; And not onelyonly Military Colonies settled for the security of the Roman Conquests, such as that of Camalodunum is described by (c)(c)Tacit. Annal. 12. c. 32.14. c. 31.Tacitus, formerly the Royal Seat of Cynobelin, King of the Trinobantes; but also Civil and Trading Colonies, such as London was from the beginning, and therefore commended by Tacitus for its admirable Situation for Trading, and all Accommodations to that end; and, upon the best enquiry I can make, I very much incline to believe it of a Roman Foundation, and no elder than the time of Claudius (as will be made appear in another Discourse:) And that in the time of Suetonius Paulinus it was inhabited by Romans and Britains together, is evident from Tacitus; When Suetonius Paulinus drew out the Inhabitants, the City not being then defensible against the Britains, who in that Revolt destroyed LXX thousand Romans and their Allies, saith Tacitus; But (d)(d)Xiphil. p. 168.Dio saith, two Cities (London and Verulam; for Camalodunum was destroyed before) and Eighty thousand Men. This was a time of so much Disorder and Bloudshed, That Gildas with great reason places the Planting of Christianity here before it. And St. Paul might have some particular incouragement at Rome to come hither from Pomponia Graecina, Wife to A. Plautius, the Roman Lieutenant under Claudius in Britain; For that she was a Christian appears very p. 44probable from the account Tacitus gives of her; (e)(e)Tacit. Annal. 13. c. 32.He saith, she was accused of foreign Superstition, and that so far as to endanger her Life; But her Husband clear'd her, sitting as Iudge according to the ancient form; and she lived long after, but in perpetual sadness. If Tacitus were to describe the Primitive Christians, he would have done it just after this manner, Charging their Religion with Superstition, and the Severity of their Lives (abstaining from all the Feasts and Jollities of the Romans) as a continual Solitude. It was the way of the Men of that time, such as (f)(f)Suct. l. 6. c. 16.Suetonius, and (g)(g)Plin. Epist. l. 10. ep. 98.Pliny, as well as (h)(h)Tacit. Annal. 15.Tacitus, to speak of Christianity as a Barbarous and Wicked Superstition (as appears by their Writings) being forbidden by their Laws; which they made the onelyonly Rule of Religion. And this happen'd when Nero and Calphurnius Piso were Consuls, after St. Paul's coming to Rome, and therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose her one of his Converts, by whom he might easily be informed of the state and condition of Britain, and thereby be more incouraged to undertake a Voyage thither. It is certain that St. Paul did make considerable Converts at his coming to Rome; Which is the reason of his mentioning (i)(i)Phil. 4.22.Phil 4:22the Saints in Caesar's houshold. And it is not improbable that some of the British Captives carried over with Caractacus and his family might be some of them; who would certainly promote the Conversion of their Countrey by St. Paul. But I cannot affirm, as (k)(k)Moncaeius, de Incunab. Regiis Eccles. Christiana Vet. Britan.Moncaeius doth, That Claudia, mention'd by St. Paul, was Caractacus his Daughter, and turn'd Christian, and after married to Pudens a Roman Senatour; whose Marriage is celebrated by Martial in his noted Epigrams to that purpose. It is certain that Claudia Ruffina was a Britain, who is so much commended by (l)(l)Martial. l. 4. ep. 13. l. 11. ep. 53.Martial for her Wit and Beauty. But if these Epigrams were written in Trajan's time, as is very probable, It is somewhat of the latest for the Daughter of Caractacus who came in Claudius his time to Rome. But (m)(m)Alford Annal. Eccles. A. D. 53. n. 5, 6.Alford digests all this well enough, onelyonly he is extremely concern'd, lest she should be made the Apostle of Britain, and Preach here before St. Peter. But the (n)(n)Antiq. Britan. p. 3.Authour of the Antiquitates Britannicae, whom he reflects upon, saith no such thing p. 45as he would impute to him. He onelyonly saith, That if she were a Christian she would acquaint her Countreymen as much with the Christian Doctrine as she did before with Martial's Witt. Wherein there is no Profaneness or Absurdity. But he adds, that in so Noble a Family, The rest of her kindred who were baptized with her might be the Occasions of dispersing Christianity in the British Nation. So that there was no need, for his bidding Claudia to keep at home, and make room for St. Peter to come to Britain to preach the Gospel. But if this Claudia were St. Paul's Disciple, why might not she excite that Apostle to go into her Countrey, to plant Christianity there, as he had done with so much Success in other Places? And whether St. Peter or St. Paul were more probably the Apostle of Britain, is now to be considered. And I affirm,

(3.) That St. Paul was the most likely to come hither of any of the Apostles. The several Traditions about St. James, Simon Zelotes and Philip, are so destitute of any ancient Testimony or Probability, that the Competition among the Apostles can lie onelyonly between St. Peter and St. Paul. Some Writers of our Church History have endeavoured for particular Reasons, to prove St. Peter to have preached the Gospel in Britain; But their Proofs are very slight and inconsiderable, and depend chiefly on the authority of Simeon Metaphrastes or other Legendary Writers, or some Monkish Visions, or some Domestick Testimonies of his pretended Successours, or some late partial Advocates, such as (o)(o)Eysengren. Cent. 1. part. 7. dist. 8.Eysengrenius, who professes to follow Metaphrastes. All which together are not worth mentioning in comparison with the Authours on the other side; I shall therefore examine the Probability of the thing from the Circumstances of St. Peter, as I did before from those of St. Paul; and I shall endeavour to shew, That his business lay quite another way, and that there is no probable Evidence of his coming hither.

I take it for granted, that the Apostles were employ'd according to the Tenour of their Commissions, viz. That the Apostle of the Circumcision was to attend the Jews, p. 46and of the Vncircumcision the Gentiles. Now St. Paul saith, That (p)(p)Gal. 2.7.Gal 2:7the Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed to him, as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter. This, (q)(q)Baron. A. D. 51. § 16, 26, 28, 29.Baronius saith, was agreed at the Council at Jerusalem. But he will not have it to be such a distribution of distinct Provinces, as that the one upon no occasion should meddle with the Gentiles, nor the other with the Jews: But yet he grants, that the Apostleship of the Gentiles was in a particular manner committed to St. Paul, as of the Jews to St. Peter. And whatever they might doe occasionally, This, as he proves from (r)(r)Hieron. in Ep. ad Gal. c. 2.Gal 2St. Jerome, was the Principale Mandatum, the Main of the Commission to either of them. Which being supposed, It necessarily follows, that St. Peter's chief employment must be where the greatest numbers of Jews were. And from hence (s)(s)Pet. de Marc. de Concord. l. 6. c. 1. n. 4.Petrus de Marca infers, That St. Peter, having preached to the Jews in Judaea, employed himself in converting the Jews abroad both of the first and second Dispersion. The latter were chiefly in Aegypt, at Alexandria, where he settled Mark the Bishop over the converted Iews. From thence he went to Antioch; from thence to Babylon, where the Head of the first Dispersion lived; And in this City, he saith, he wrote his Epistle to those dispersed Jews, over whose Synagogues the Patriarch of Babylon had Jurisdiction. Clemens Romanus takes no notice at all of St. Peter's Preaching in the Western parts, as he doth of St. Paul's. But (t)(t)Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 1.Eusebius, from Origen, saith, That St. Peter preached to the dispersed Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, &c. And (u)(u)Epiphan. Har. 27. n. 6.Epiphanius, even where he saith, That St. Peter and St. Paul did both constitute Bishops at Rome upon their going thence to preach the Gospel in other places; yet he adds, That St. Paul went towards Spain, but St. Peter frequently visited Pontus and Bithynia, which was very agreeable to the design of his Commission, there being so great a number of Jews in those parts. And Pontus and Bithynia seem to have been reserved as the peculiar Province of St. Peter; For when St. Paul attempted to go into Bithynia, (w)(w)Act. 16.7.Acts 16:7he was forbidden by the Spirit, which then commanded him to come into Europe. And so he made for Macedonia. (x)(x)Baron. A. D. 58. n. 51.Baronius grants, that St. Peter spent the greatest p. 47part of his time in the Eastern parts, but about Anno Dom. LVIII. he finds him employed in the West, and particularly among the Britains. But what ancient authority, according to his own Rule, doth he produce for it? He names none but Metaphrastes, and yet, as it falls out unluckily, when the same Metaphrastes his authority is produced, for St. Paul's preaching in the Western parts, he is apparently slighted by him (y)(y)A.D. 61. n. 4.and for the very same Reason, which holds against the former Testimony, viz. for quoting things out of Eusebius, which are not to be found in him. And elsewhere he saith, (z)(z)A.D. 44. n. 38.he is of no authority in these matters. But Metaphrastes his Testimony serves to a good purpose in St. Peter's Case, viz. to clear a considerable difficulty, how St. Peter, if then Bishop of Rome, should not be taken notice of by St. Paul, when he wrote his Epistle to the Romans. To which he answers, That Saint Peter came to Rome the second of Claudius, but being banished thence with other Jews the ninth of Claudius, he spent the time then in preaching the Gospel in other places, and so very conveniently finds him in Britain, when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, which he placeth in the second of Nero. But it is by no means probable, saith (a)(a)Vales. in Euseb. l. 2. c. 16.Valesius, That St. Peter should come to Rome before the death of Herod Agrippa. And (b)(b)Baron. A.D. 44. § 10.Baronius saith, That after his being delivered out of prison, he went to Caesarea, Laodicea and Antioch (according to his own Authour Metaphrastes) and then into Cappadocia, Pontus, Galatia and Bithynia, and so returned by Antioch to Jerusalem. So that if Metaphrastes his authority be good for any thing, St. Peter could hardly come to Rome the second of Claudius: And if the death of Agrippa followed soon after the delivery of St. Peter, as Valesius thinks, and St. Luke seems to intimate; then he could not be at Rome till the fourth of Claudius, for all agree that Agrippa died that year. So that there is no certainty of St. Peter's coming to Rome the second of Claudius. Yet let that be supposed, And that St. Peter went from Rome on the Edict of Claudius. What makes him so long absent from thence as to the second of Nero, when (c)(c)Rom. 16.3.Rom 16:3St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans salutes Aquila and Priscilla as then present p. 48at Rome, who certainly left it before on the (d)(d)Act. 18.2.Acts 18:2Account of that Edict. So that this Edict could be no reason of his being absent from Rome at the time of this Epistle. But it falls out unhappily, That though St. Peter be made by Baronius and others Bishop of Rome for twenty five years, yet he can never be found in his own Diocese in all that time before his Martyrdom; But one excuse or other is still found for his absence, when there were several remarkable Transactions which must have discovered him if he had been at Rome; As not onelyonly upon St. Paul's writing this Epistle to the Romans, but upon St. Paul's coming to Rome, upon his writing so many Epistles from thence, upon the defence he made for himself, when he saith, (e)(e)2 Tim. 4.16.2 Tim 4:16that all forsook him. What St. Peter too? So that upon the whole matter, the Opinion of (f)(f)Lactant. de Mort. Persec. c. 2.Lactantius in his late published Book, seems most agreeable to truth, That St. Peter came not to Rome till the Reign of Nero, and not long before his Martyrdom; And this Baluzius confesses to have been the most ancient and received Opinion in the Church, since Lactantius never disputes it: And what he saith of the twenty five years wherein the Apostles planted Churches, was in likelihood the Occasion of that mistaken Tradition concerning Saint Peter's being twenty five years Bishop of Rome. So much may suffice to shew the greater probability, That the Christian Church in Britain was rather founded by St. Paul than by St. Peter or any other Apostle.