The Antiquities of the British Churches, Book · Chapter 5 (2 of 3)

The Antiquities of the British Churches · Book · Chapter 5 (2 of 3)

p. 282But it is but Justice to consider on the other side, what the Scotish Antiquaries do now plead for themselves, to prove that they inhabited Scotland long before this time.

First, They say, (x)(x)Bede, l. 1. c. 1.Bede mentions them as ancient Inhabitants of this Island before the coming of the Romans; and describes the War's between the Picts, Scots and Britains before that of the Romans. It is very true, that Bede, in the beginning of his History, doth set down the several Nations which inhabited Britain, and he names five. English, Britains, Scots, Picts and Romans. And among these he reckons the Britains first, then the Picts, after them the Scots from Ireland under Reuda; and then adds▪ That Ireland was the true Countrey of the Scots, who coming hither made a third Nation in Britain, besides the Britains and Picts, and landed on the North part of the Frith, towards Ireland, and there settled themselves. But Bede saith nothing at all of the time when the Scots came first from Ireland, and it is of no force, that he reckons them here before the War with the Romans; for, so he doth the English as well as the Scots: his business being to give an Account of the present Inhabitants, and not merely of the Ancient, Haec in praesenti 5 Gentium linguis, &c. But where doth Bede say, that the Scots were in Britain before the Romans coming hither? I cannot find so much as an Intimation that way: unless it be in the Title of the Chapter, Of the Situation of Britain and Ireland, and their ancient Inhabitants. And doth not Bede speak of the Britains as the ancient Inhabitants of this Island and the Scots of Ireland? But if all mention'd must be ancient Inhabitants, p. 283then so must the English and Romans be, as well as the Picts and Scots.

Well! But doth not (y)(y)L. 1. c. 5.Bede afterwards say, That Severus his Wall was built against the unconquer'd Nations beyond it? I grant it, if he had said, the Scots and Picts beyond it, the Controversie had been ended. But doth not Dio explain Bede, who expresly tells us, these Nations were the Maeatae and the Caledonii? Why not the Picts and the Scots if then in Britain? The latter Roman Writers never forbear calling them by their own Names, when they knew them to be here; as appears by Eumenius, Claudian and Ammianus Marcellinus: but to say the Scots were called Maeatae, because they came from the Palus Maeotis, will hardly go down in this Age. However it is confidently affirmed, the Caledonii were the Scots. Let this one thing be well proved, and I will yield the Scots were in Britain long before Severus his time; for Tacitus mentions the Caledonians. But it is to no more purpose to quote modern Writers, who call the Caledonians Scots, than Lipsius his calling Galgacus a Scotish King: for we are not bound to follow any modern Writers in their Improprieties. There is no Question the Caledonians were known to Flaccus and Martial (who certainly lived not in Augustus his time, unless that Name be very improperly given by it self to Domitian or Trajan.) But do any of these Roman Authours ever tell us the Caledonians were Scots ▪ If not, to what end are the Caledonians so much spoken of? As far as we can find by Tacitus, or Dio, or any others, they were the Northern Britains. And if Tacitus had known that they came out of Ireland, and were a distinct Nation, he was so diligent and judicious a Writer, he would never have omitted the setting it down, when he gives so punctual an account of the Original of the several sorts of Britains, according to his best Judgment and Information; and none could have better; relating some things concerning Ireland, from Agricola's own Mouth, who was then the Roman General against the Caledonians. And he saith, Agricola had one of the Kings of Ireland with him. Suppose we then the Caledonians to have been Scots come out of Ireland; Is it possible, that an Irish p. 284King should not be able to inform Agricola who these Caledonians were? Or, if Tacitus had known any such thing, would he have said, the Caledonians, by the habit of their bodies seemed to be of German Extraction, when he derives the Silures from Spain? Had it not been as easie for him to have derived the Caledonians from Spain through Ireland, if any such thing had been heard by him, as that the Caledonians were of Ireland, and came first out of Spain thither? But nothing can be more plain than that Tacitus took the Caledonians for Britains, and so doth Galgacus, in his excellent Speech, wherein he calls them, the Noblest of the Britains, and excites them to recover the Liberty of the Britains; and tells them, they fought the same Cause with the other Britains; and now they were to shew what sort of Men Caledonia had reserved for their common defence. Was Tacitus so inconsiderate a Writer to put such words into Galgacus his mouth, if he knew or suspected the Caledonians to be no Britains, but a different Nation come out of Ireland in the time that Alexander took Babylon? Had Tacitus known any thing of this, he would never have concealed it, when he values himself upon his Integrity, in relating what he could find about the Affairs of Britain. And therefore Tacitus his Judgment in this matter is to be much preferr'd before Scaliger's Criticism about the Scoto-brigantes, or the Scoticae pruinae in Spartian's Poet; or any such uncertain Conjectures. And yet the Scoto-brigantes might be Irish; where both Scoti and Brigantes were, and so it proves nothing, as to Britain; for Claudius conquer'd Ireland as much as Scotland.

But it is more plausibly urged, That (z)(z)L. 1. c. 12.Bede speaking of the Scots being a transmarine Nation, he explains himself by saying, that he means not that they were out of Britain, but beyond the two Friths; therefore the Scots then inhabited Britain. This was but a necessary Explication, for Bede, who used these words, after he had confessed before, that the Scots under Reuda did settle in Britain. Therefore when he used Gildas his words, he thought it necessary to reconcile them with his own; and so declares that he used transmarine now in another sense. Just as if a Scotish Writer in Bede's p. 285time had spoken of the transmarine Saxons, using the words of an Authour who lived before their coming into Britain; and then should explain himself, That he did not mean the German Saxons, but those who lived in Britain, beyond the two Friths; would this prove, that the Saxons lived here before Caesar's time? And if this be an Argument clear to a Demonstration, some mens Demonstrations will hardly amount to the strength of a probable Argument. And I am apt to fear no Mens way of reasoning more than those who talk most of Demonstrations.

What if St. Jerome mentions the Scoti from Porphyrie, and the Attacotti as a British Nation, what doth this prove as to the Scots inhabiting Britain so long agon? Could there be no Scots but in Britain, when it is confessed they came originally out of Ireland? Sidonius Apollinaris doth mention the Scots and Picts, in his Panegyrick to (s)(s)Sidon. Carmi 7. v. 90.Authemius; but what then? who denies that the Scots and Picts did then fight and were beaten in Britain? but could not they be beaten here then unless they came into Britain before Julius Caesar? Is this clear to a Demonstration? But it is observable, that in the Verse before he calls the Caledonians Britains even then.

Victricia Caesar

Signa Caledonios transvexit ad usque Britannos.

Fuderit & quanquam Scotum, & cum Saxone Pictum.

Where it is evident he distinguisheth the Caledonian Britains from the Scots and Picts.

But Claudian mentions the Scots as settled in Britain before his time. If it be granted; that falls very much short of Alexander or Julius Caesar's time; yet there appears no Demonstration for it. His words are, (t)(t)Claud. in 4. Consul. Honorii, v. 33.Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne. But there is a certain Place in Scotland called by that Name. I will not dispute it; but are we sure that Claudian knew it by that Name? Was that so considerable to be taken such notice of by the Roman Writers? p. 286Was not Ireland then called Ierne by him? And doth he not mention the Scots moving all Ierne?

(u)(u)1^o Consulat. Stilicon. l. 2. v. 251.Totam cùm Scotus Iernen

Movit, & infesto spumavit remige Tethys?

And is not this very Poetical, to say, He moved all a certain little part of Scotland? From whence they might pass beyond the Wall, without so much as touching the Ocean? Must these things pass for Demonstrations too?

I mention these Evidences, which the Weight of the Cause is laid upon, to shew how far these Antiquities are still from being cleared, to the satisfaction of impartial Men. For I had no Luddus my Kinsman, nor Buchanan my Enemy; I search for nothing but Truth in such Enquiries, it being as much to my satisfaction, that the Scots came into Britain in Alexander's time, as any time after, if it can be as well proved. But it doth not become the ingenuity of Learned Men, when all judicious Persons in the Nations about us have rejected their fabulous Antiquities, to adhere to them without producing better Proofs of them; and that with so much violence as if the Interest of the Nation, and the Succession of the Royal Family were concerned in them: Which hath far stronger grounds to stand upon than the Authority of Hector Boethius, or the Race of Kings between the two Fergusses, or the certain time when the Scots came first into Britain.

Having thus far given an Account of the Antiquities relating to the Picts and Scots, the mortal Enemies of the Britains; I now come to pursue my main Design, which relates to the Antiquities of the British Churches, whose declining State and Condition I am now arrived at.

And the first Occasion thereof was, the laying them open to the fury of their greatest Enemies, the Picts and the Scots. It is impossible for us to set down the punctual time when the Scots and the Picts first join'd their Forces together to give disturbance to the Britains, but it is clear that they did so towards the middle of the fourth Century. For (x)(x)Am. Marcell. l. 20. c. 1.Ammianus Marcellinus, speaking p. 287of the Incursions they made in the time of Constantius, when Julian was Caesar, An. Dom. 360. he saith, That Julian, being then at Paris, durst not go over to the assistence of the Britains against the Scots and the Picts, as Constans had done before. Which Expedition of his happen'd Anno Dom. 343. after his success over the Franks, and he passed an Edict, still exstant in the (y)(y)C. Theod. de extraord. XI. Tit. 16. L. 5.Theodosian Code, when he was at Bologn, in his Passage, which bears date that year; And a Coin of his is mention'd by (z)(z)Hist. Byzant. p. 33.Du Cange and (a)(a)In Caes. Jul. p. 134.Spanheim, wherein the Effigies of Constans is on one Side, and on the Reverse, an armed Man on Shipboard, with the Image of Victory, and the Inscription of Bononia Oceanen; being Coined on purpose to preserve the memory of this Passage. And upon his coming over, things were quieted here, but not long after, they began to make new Incursions, within the Bounds of the Province, as is evident from the foregoing Passage of Ammianus Marcellinus, when Lupicinus was sent over, who arrived at London, saith he, in the middle of Winter, to take Counsel how to proceed. In the time of Valentinian, the same Historian (b)(b)L. 26. c. 4.saith, That there seem'd to be a general disturbance through the whole Empire, by the barbarous Nations who lay near them; And, among the rest, he mentions the Picts (whom some render Redshanks) the Saxons, the Scots, and the Attacots, who were continually vexing and doing mischief to the Britains, so that in a little time, the (c)(c)L. 27. c. 8.Britains were reduced to a miserable condition by a new Conspiracy of the Barbarians, wherein Nectaridus the Comes Maritimi Tractûs, or Roman Admiral, and Fallofaudes, the General, were both killed. And then Valentinian sent over Theodosius; a famous Captain (Father to the first Emperour of that Name) with considerable Forces. For at that time, the Picts of both kinds, the Deucalidones and Vecturiones; the Attacotti, a fierce Nation, and the Scots, dispersing themselves up and down, did abundance of mischief; But Theodosius, leaving London, dispersed his Forces likewise into several parts, who surprized the Enemies, and recover'd their Booty, which they restored to the Owners, onelyonly reserving a small share for the Souldiers; And so in a short time, he put the City out of its fears and difficulties, and entred it as p. 287it were in Triumph: And then took care to have good Officers placed here; Civilis for Administration of Justice; and Dulcitius for Military Affairs.

Who these Attacotti were, who joyn'd with the Picts and Scots; our Antiquaries are not agreed; But because of their joining with the other, and yet being distinguished from them, it seems most probable, that they were the Wild Britains; For (d)(d)c. Jovin. l. 2.St. Hierome doth say, they were a British People. But what the Reason of the Name was, is not yet understood, and I doubt will not be, unless some happen to derive it from the Phoenician Language. What great mischief had been done to the Britains, by this Combination of their Enemies, appears by the care taken by Theodosius, after his beating them out of the Countrey, to restore the Cities and Garrisons, and to settle the Guards upon the Frontiers; which being done, That part of the Countrey which he recover'd from them, he obtained leave to have it named a New Province. And it was called Valentia, from the Emperour's Name. This was done Anno Domini 368. And the next year Theodosius returned to the Emperour's Court. From that time we reade no more of their Incursions till Maximus, in the time of Gratian, Son to Valentinian, was set up by the Souldiery in Britain, to be Emperour. Then (e)(e)Chronic. init.Prosper, set out by Pithaeus, saith, Maximus overcame the Picts and Scots, making new Incursions. Which he thought he had done so effectually as to fear no disturbance on that Sides, And therefore took away from hence all the Flower both of the Roman and British Souldiery, to make good his Title against Gratian and Valentinian, and after, against Theodosius; So that there was no possibility of their return, to secure the Frontiers from their Enemies. And this proved the fatal Blow to the Britains. For the Empire being so divided, and Maximus forced to keep his Army together, those parts were left open to the Rage and Fury of their Merciless Enemies. And if the (f)(f)v. Usser. Prim. p. 590.Authour of the Eulogium and Giraldus Cambrensis may be believed, Gratian and Valentinian entred into a League with the Gothick Picts, and helped them with Shipping to convey them into the Northern parts of Britain, on purpose to withdraw Maximus p. 288his Army out of Gaul: Who coming thither in great Numbers, and finding the Countrey naked and without defence, settled themselves in those Parts. Not as though the Picts had not come hither before, but they never came over in so great Numbers and with so much Incouragement as they did now. And it seems not improbable, that Gratian and Valentinian should at that time deal with the Gothick Nation to give a diversion to Maximus. For (g)(g)Zosim. l. … p. 760.Zosimus assigns that as one of the great Causes of Gratian's Ruine, that he seemed more fond of the barbarous Nations than of the Romans: And Maximus charged Valentinian, with making use of the Hunns and the Alani against him; Which is not denied by (h)(h)St. Ambros. Ep. 27.St. Ambrose, who was sent by Valentinian on an Embassy to him. These Hunni and Alani were, as is commonly said, Inhabitants of Sarmatia Europaea near to the Palus Maeotis. The Alani did live upon the Tanais, saith (i)(i)Rer. Franc. l. 3. p. 98. l. 4. p. 153.Hadrianus Valesius; And the Hunni, saith he, were a Scythian People, between the Pontus and the Caspian Sea, upon the Northern Parts of the Caucasus, from whom the Abares, Turks and Hungarians are descended. But whosoever observes (k)(k)Am. Marcel l. 31. c. 2.Ammianus Marcellinus his Description of them, will find that the Hunni were the Asiatick Tartars; and the Alani the European. The Hunni in the time of Valens passed over the Palus Maeotis in vast Numbers, and after, having killed many of the Alani, took the rest into Confederacy with them, and having conquer'd the Goths in those Parts, inlarged their Power as far as the Danube: Where they lay ready to come into the Roman Empire on any Occasion. And it is not to be wonder'd if Gratian should employ Persons into Scandinavia to draw out greater Forces from thence, thereby to make a Revulsion, as to Maximus his Designs in the Northern Parts of Britain. However this were, Gildas from this time dates the miserable Condition of the Britains, as being in no Posture to defend themselves at Home. (l)(l)Nenn. c. 23.Nennius saith, That Maximianus (as he calls him) carried all the Forces out of Britain, and killed Gratian the Emperour; And would not let the British Souldiers return to their Wives, Children or Possessions, but gave them another Countrey instead of it; In the Western parts of Gaul, p. 290saith the Interpolatour of Nennius. And these, saith Nennius, are the Aremorican Britains, who never after returned to their own Countrey. And from hence, he saith, Britain was seized upon by foreign Nations, and its own Natives were driven out; and would so continue till God helped them. But the British History, set forth by (m)(m)Hist. Brit. l. 2. c. 4.Geffrey, hath improved the Story in many Particulars. First, It makes this Maximianus to marry the Daughter of Octavius, and so to come to the Kingdom of Britain; Then, it adds, That Conanus retired into Albany, and raised an Army, which was overthrown by Maximianus, who after five years passed into Gaul, and fought first against the Armoricans, whose Countrey he gave to Conanus and his Britains; Who, resolving not to marry any others than British Women, he sent over Messengers to Dionotus, King of Cornwall, to whom Maximianus, had committed the Government of Britain, to provide Wives for them; And he sent with Ursula his own Daughter Eleven thousand of the better sort, and of the common sixty Thousand. But these were unhappily, by Storms either sunk or driven into those Places, where Guanius, King of the Hunns, and Melga, King of the Picts, who were Consederates with Gratian, were joined with their Armies, who cruelly destroyed them. After which they came into Albany, where they made havock of all Places they came near. Then Maximianus sent Gratianus Municeps with two Legions who subdued the Hunns and Picts, and drove them into Ireland. Here we have many fabulous Particulars put together, but none comparable to the 71000 Virgins sunk or destroyed by the Hunns. And yet Geffrey's Relation of this Legend is magnified by (n)(n)Bar. ad Martyrol. Rom. Octobr. 21.Baronius, and approved by (o)(o)Not. ad Tab. Pentinger.M. Velserus, (p)(p)Disquis. de SS. Virg. Col.Aub. Miraeus, and (q)(q)Belg. Rom. l. 12. c. 5.Aegid. Bucherius, as most agreeable to the Circumstances of the time. Which is a thing to be wonder'd at; considering how little Foundation there is for any one Particular of Geffrey's whole Relation, either as to Octavius, then King of Britain, or the marrying his Daughter to Maximus, or as to Conanus going first into Albany, and thence into Aremorica, or the settling of the British Souldiers there, at so busie a time, when Maximus wanted all the Assistence he could get; or the sending to Dionotus, or the sending p. 291away such a Number of Virgins at once, without any Fleet to conduct or secure their Passage. But (r)(r)Not. in Ven. Fortun. l. 3. p. 59.Browerus hath overthrown this Legend at once, by proving that Aremorica was not in the Britains Possession till a good time after this; For, as he well observes, Maximus was kindly received in Gaul, and met with no considerable Opposition there, Gratian's own Souldiers revolting to him, and he passed on and settled himself at Triers, (then the Seat of this part of the Empire) as Gildas saith; And besides, in the time of Actius, the Aremorici enjoy'd their own Countrey (as he proves from Constantius his Life of St. German) about Anno Dom. 434. After which time they stood up in their own defence, till they were reduced by Littorius, which he shews from Sidonius Apollinaris. And (s)(s)Rutil. Iriner. l. 1. v. 250.Rutilius Claudius, in the beginning of the fifth Century, after Maximus his time, mentions the Aremorici, as still enjoying their Countrey, where Exuperantius was then Governour. Saying, that after the Troubles by the Goths they had Postliminium Pacis; which evidently proves, they were not then kept out of Possession.

Cujus Aremoricas Patèr Exuperantius oras

Nunc Postliminium pacis amare docet

Leges restituit libertatemque reducit

Et Servos Famulis non sinit esse suis.

And this was written after the Sacking of Rome by the Goths; So that there is no foundation for this Legend in the time of Maximus. Aegid. Bucherius, although he approves of Geffrey, as to the time, and some other Circumstances, yet he differs from him in others. For he goes upon these Grounds, that Maximus landed at the Mouth of the Rhine, as Zosimus saith, That there they left the Multitude of Women and Virgins which follow'd the Army out of Britain; where the Hunns which Bauto sent against Maximus fell upon them and destroy'd them. This is no ill-contrived Story; but very different from the Legend in Geffrey, in all the considerable parts of it: And yet after all, Bucherius thinks fit to yield up his Faith to the old Legend, as it is defended by Bebius and Crombachius; and so it is taken off from the time of Maximus.

p. 292(t)(t)Scoti-chron. l. 2. c. 63.Joh. Fordon, agrees with Geffrey about Maximus his giving the Countrey of Aremorica to Conanus and his Britains, Anno Dom. 386. but he is so far from mentioning the 11000 Virgins, That he supposes the Britains of both sexes to have settled there together. But he makes a more credible Relation of Conanus his going over to Aremorica, which is, That Maximus mistrusted he might set up for himself in his Absence, having the legal Title to Britain, and therefore he removed him and the Chief of the Britains, and settled them in those Parts of Gaul. This is no improbable Story; but yet the Aremoricans enjoying their Countrey after this time, is an effectual Confutation of it.

After the death of Maximus, more Troubles following in the Roman Empire, the Picts and the Scots, saith (u)(u)Scoti. thron. l. 3. c. 1.Fordon, negotiate a mutual Peace and stricter Alliance, in order, saith he, to the recovering their Countrey again. For Maximus had made use of the Picts to drive out the Scots, and then put Garrisons among the Picts to keep them under. And upon this Agreement, An. D. 403. in the sixth of Arcadius and Honorius, Fergus the Son of Erk the Son of Ethadius the Brother of Eugenius, who was driven out by Maximus, came with his two Brothers (called there Loarii and Tenegus, in all probability Loarn and Aengus, which were the Names, the Irish Annals give to the Brothers of Fergus, as is observed before) and great Supplies of Scots from the Islands of Ireland and Norwey, whither they were driven: And the Picts, to prevent all Suspicion of Treachery surrendred up their Forts to Fergus.c. 2. Who now became King of all Scotland, i. e. of that Part which is beyond Drum Albain, as well as on this other, which, he saith, it doth not appear how he came to, whether by the Sword or by any other Right, none of his Predecessours having any Power there. (w)(w)Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 11.Sir 50:1Bede saith, The Romans had the Right of Dominion to the remotest part of the Island: Which is not easie to make out, unless the Possession and Conquest were better proved than appears by Bede's History. For although he mentions Claudius his Conquering the Orcades; yet it is hard to prove it by any Roman Authours; And if the Possession were after lost, for so long a time, it will be as hard to prove the Romans still enjoy'd the Right of p. 293Dominion upon so slender a Title. But the Picts and Scots being thus united, their first Work, saith Fordon, was to drive out the …omans and Britains from their Countrey, and then to invade Britain, which was then left destitute of any defence: And so by their Incursions they either killed the Common People, or made them Slaves.

Here Fordon transcribes Bede's twelfth Chapter of his first Book;c. 3. the Foundation whereof he took out of Gildas, concerning the departure of the British Forces without returning; the Invasion of the Scots and Picts; the Britains sending an Address to Rome for Assistence; a Roman Legion coming and driving out their Enemies; and persuading the Britains to build a Wall for their own Security. But it is observable, that Bede varies from Gildas without Reason; For what Gildas speaks of their departure with Maximus, he applies to the going of the Remainders of the British Forces under Constantinus and Constans, after Gratianus Municeps was killed in Britain having usurped the Empire here. But that Bede was herein mistaken will best appear by digesting the times wherein these things happen'd as well as we can.

(x)(x)Zos. l. 6.Zosimus saith, That Honorius VII. and Theodosius II. being Consuls, viz. A.D. 407. (nineteen years after the death of Maximus, as (y)(y)Primord. p. 591.Archbishop Vsher observes, (z)(z)Phot. Cod. 80.Olympiodorus in Photius saith, the year before, Orosius and Sozomen the year after, viz. the year when Arcadius died;) the British Souldiers in a Mutiny set up one Marcus to be Emperour, as a Man of great Power in these Parts; But he, not answering their expectation, they soon took him off, and then set up Gratianus, (who was a Native of Britain, for so much (a)(a)Hist. l. 7. c. 40.Orosius his Words imply, when he saith, he was Municeps ejusdem Insulae) and made him put on the Royal Purple and Crown, &c. but he not pleasing them, after four months they take away his life. (b)(b)Nenn. c. 24.Of him Nennius saith nothing; But he mentions one Severus between Maximus and Constantius, whom others omit; But (c)(c)Galfr. l. 2. c. 4.Geffrey makes Gratianus to assume the Royal Authority assoon as he heard of the Death of Maximus; But he was so tyrannical, he saith, That the common People rose up and killed him; and after his death the Britains, according to him, sent to Rome, to p. 294beg help against the Picts and Scots. But Zosimus and Orosius both say; That, upon the Death of Gratianus, they set up here Constantine, a mean person (for the good Omen of his Name saith Orosius) who immediately left Britain, and passed over into Gaul, where he gained the Army to him, and made his Son Constans Caesar, and sent him into Spain. Olympiodorus saith, That he sent a Message and Excuse to Honorius, for assuming the Imperial Dignity, that he was forced to it by the Army; And that Honorius allow'd the Excuse, and for a time admitted him into Partnership with him. But Gerontius a Britain, one of the Generals, finding himself slighted by Constans, made a Revolt among his Souldiers and stirr'd up the barbarous Nations in Gaul against Constantine; Upon which occasion, saith Zosimus, The British Islands, and some of the Celtick Nations renounced the Roman Empire; And took up Arms to defend themselves from the Incursions of their Enemies: And Honorius by his Letters gave them leave to take care of themselves. Not long after Constans is killed by Gerontius, and Constantine, after the Siege of Arles, had his Head cut off by (d)(d)Soz. l. 9. c. 15. Phor. Cod. 80.Honorius his Order. But (e)(e)Nenn. c. 25.Nennius, against the consent of all the Greek and Latin Historians, both Heathen and Christian, saith, That this Constantine reigned 16 years in Britain, and in the seventeenth died at York. However he falls much short of (f)(f)Galfr. l. 2. c. 5, 6.Geffrey; for, he saith, That Constantine was Brother to Aldroenus, King of the Aremorican Britains, to whom Guithelin, Metropolitane of London was sent on an Embassy to accept the Government, which he put off to Constantine, who was chosen King at Silcester, and had a Roman Wife of Guithelin's education, by whom he had three Sons, Constans a Monk at Winchester, Aurelius Ambrosius, and Uther Pendragon, who were committed to Guithelin's care. After Constantine's Death, who was killed by a Pict, there happen'd a great Contest about the Succession; but by Vortigern's means Constans is taken from the Monastery, and set on the Throne at London; But Guithelin was now dead, and Vortigern put the Diadem on his Head, who governed all things, and soon got himself rid of him by a Guard of Picts he had placed about him, and so took the Government upon himself.

p. 295But I shall set aside these Fictions or Traditions of Geffrey and Nennius, and consider now what Bede saith, He makes Gratianus Municeps to be set up two years before the sacking of Rome by Alaric, King of the Goths, which happen'd Anno Dom. 410. And he follows Orosius, about Constantine and his Son Constans, without ever imagining their continuing to govern, and losing their Lives in Britain: But then he applies the Passage in Gildas, concerning the lamentable Condition of the Britains, and their help from the Romans, to the times after the Death of Constantine; Whereas Gildas mentions both upon the Usurpation of Maximus, and his withdrawing the Forces from hence; And therefore this first cruel Invasion of the Picts and Scots must be between the Death of Maximus, and the setting up of Gratianus Municeps: And then the Britains so earnestly begging for Assistence, had Roman Governours and Forces sent to their Relief. Some think that (g)(g)Iriner. l. 1. v. 500.Claudius Rutilius mentions Victorinus as a Roman Governouor here in that time, but this is uncertain, when he there speaks of the taking Tholouse by the Goths, which was done by Ataulphus some time after the death of Alaric; And therefore could not be before the time of Gratian and Constantine; For Idatius saith, that this latter was killed before Ataulphus entred Narbon, which was before the taking of Tholouse.

It is evident from many Passages in (h)(h)De laud. Scilich. l. 2. v. 25. De Bello Ger. v. 415. In Eutrop. l. 2.Claudian, that Stilicho, took particular care of the Supplies of the Britains against the Scots and Picts: But Stilicho was killed by the Army when Bassus and Philippus were Consuls, Anno Dom. 408. before the first Siege of Rome by the Goths; And therefore the Roman Forces sent by him were before the Vsurpation of Gratianus and Constantine: Stilicho being killed the same year that these were set up in Britain, it is not possible he should doe it after their death; And it seems not probable that any Supplies should be sent through Gaul while Constantine remained there, the Army through which they were to pass in Gaul taking part with Constantine against Honorius. And withall Gildas saith, That the Roman Legion, having driven out the Picts and Scots, returned in Triumph to Rome: And so much is confessed p. 296by Bede. But at what time should we suppose, after the Vsurpation of Constantine, that a Roman Legion should return in so much Triumph? For after Constantine's Usurpation the Roman Empire began to decline extremely in those parts through which they were to pass: Gaul being upon Composition (i)(i)Jornand. c. 30. Paul. Diac. l. 14. Sigeb. Chron. A. D. 412.delivered up to the Goths by Honorius, and the Franks and Burgundians making continual impressions there. I conclude it therefore most probable, that the first Supplies given to the Britains were not after Constantine's Vsurpation, but between the death of Maximus, and the setting up of Gratianus Municeps.

The second time the distressed Britains were forced to solicit the Romans for Supplies, is placed by (k)(k)Primord. p. 603.Archbishop Vsher, An. Dom. 426. when Gallio Ravennas was sent hither, as he supposes, because the next year Prosper, saith Gallio, was sent against Bonifacius in Africa. But then he makes the first Supplies to have been in the latter end of Honorius; for which I can see no reason. For he grants,p. 594. That after the Death of Maximus, the Scots and the Picts did waste Britain; and that then Stilicho did send assistence to them. Why then should the first wasting of the Countrey, spoken of by Gildas, and the Legion sent upon it, be that in the latter end of Honorius, and not rather that in the beginning? For the latter end of Honorius his Reign was very perplexed and troublesome. The Alani, Suevi and Vandali were in Spain; The Franks, Burgundians and Goths in Gaul; Iovinus and Sebastian there, after Constantine's death, usurped the Empire; And although the Goths ▪ going into Spain, did great Service against the other Barbarians, yet such were the Straits of the Roman Empire in Gaul, That Constantius, who then managed the Affairs of the Empires was forced to recall them, as both Prosper and Idatius say, Monaxius and Plinta being Consuls (which was the twenty fourth of Honorius,) and to give them all that part in Gaul from the Garonne to the Ocean. The year before Honorius his death, he was forced to send his Forces under Castinus into Spain, against the Vandals, as Prosper affirms; and that proved the Occasion of new Troubles in Africa, by the difference between Castinus and Bonifucius, who, for his p. 297own Security, conveyed over the Vandals thither. It is not therefore very probable, that the first Supplies of the Britains should be in the latter end of Honorius, especially since the Learned Primate confesseth that Honorius did not in his time recover the Province of Britain, and he proves it against Sabellicus from Procopius, p. 600.Bede, the Saxon Annals and Ethelwerd. And the single Testimony of Sigebert, That Honorius, at the same time, sent assistence to the Britains, that he did to the Spaniards (when Prosper, Idatius and Cassiodore, who all mention the latter, say not a word of the former) cannot weigh down the Reasons on the other side.

But as to the second Supplies which were sent upon the mighty importunity of the Britains; They were in probability in the beginning of the Reign of Valentinian III. after that Aêtius had somewhat recover'd the Credit of the Roman Empire in Gaul: For after his Success there, both against the Goths and Franks he had liberty enough to send over a Legion to the Assistence of the Britains, who were again miserably harass'd by the Scots and Picts. And at this time it was that Gildas saith, The Romans, upon the sad Representations the British Embassadours made of their pitifull condition, sent them speedy Supplies, who coming upon their Enemies on a sudden, like a violent Torrent, drove them all before them, and made them repass the Seas: Which is an Argument, they did not then inhabit in Britain. But the Romans then plainly told the Britains, they were not at leisure to bring over Legions as often as their Enemies invaded them: But they must train up their own People to Arms to defend themselves and their Wives and Children against a sort of Men no ways stronger than themselves. And, to incourage them the more, they built a Wall of Stone from Sea to Sea, and Forts on the Shore, and exercised them in Arms, taking their leave of them, and telling them, they must expect their return no more. This is the Substance of Gildas his Relation, with whom Bede agrees; onelyonly inlarging the Description of the Wall, which, he saith, was eight Foot in breadth and twelve in height, and that it stood where the Wall of Severus stood, being all made of Stone, and not of Turf, as that unserviceable Wall was, which the Britains had before without skill and direction built for themselves.

p. 298It hath been much disputed among our Learned Antiquaries where this last Wall stood, whether in the place where the former of Turf was raised by the Britains between the two Friths, or where Hadrian's Wall was first built, between the Tine and the Esk Bede puts a great distance between these two Walls, and makes the former to have been between the two Friths, beginning at a Place called Peneltun, two miles from Abercorney, and ending to the West, near Alcluyd: which, saith he, signifies a Rock in the River Cluyd. But the latter Wall was from Sea to Sea, in a direct Line, between the Cities there built for Security against Incursions, and it stood in the Place of Severus his Wall. (l)(l)Scoti-chron. l. 3. c. 5.Joh. Fordon distinguishes between the old Wall called Grimesdike, from Grime, a Britain (whose Daughter Fergus married, and after his death, ruled over the Scots during his Grand-child's Minority: and which Wall, he saith, this Grime overthrew, and so recovered the ancient Possessions due to him as descended from Fulgenius) and the other Wall built where Severus his stood: And he gives very different descriptions of them. The former Wall, he saith, begins from the East, upon the South-side of the Scotish Shore, near a Village called Karedin, and then for twenty two miles crosses the Land, c. 4.leaving Glasgow on the South; and ends on the Bank of the River Clyd, near Kirk-patrick. The other, he saith, begins on the East in the Southern Bank of the Tyne to Gaitsheved, or Goatshead,c. 7. where Severus, saith he, a long time before had made a Wall and a Trench over against New-castle; and so it is continued to the River Esk, called Scotishwath, for sixty miles, and ends near Carlisle, on the West. But (m)(m)Hist. l. 4. Rege 27. l. 5. R. 41.Buchanan contends, that Severus his Wall was where Graham's Dike, or Grimes-dike was, and at least eighty miles distant from Hadrian's Wall; which he proves from the Antiquities there found, and the square Stones taken up; which do sufficiently prove an ancient Stone Wall to have been there, but not that of Severus: And the Roman Inscriptions in (n)(n)Brit. p. 699.Camden mention Antoninus, and not Severus. Joh. (o)(o)l. 1. c. 14.Major places Severus his Wall as Fordon doth between the Tyne and the Esk. But Archbishop (p)(p)Primord. p. 605, 1024, &c.Vsher hath endeavoured to clear this matter, by yielding to Buchanan, that the Scotish Wall was p. 299made of Stone, viz. by the Romans under Gallio Ravennas, and by proving that Bede was mistaken as to Severus his Wall being made of Turf before, which was the Reason he thought it turned into Stone at this time; it being not likely, that the Romans would bring the Britains at least eighty miles back, and put them to defend a Wall so very much longer than the other; But I rather think Severus his Wall was now repaired, and a larger Scope allow'd for the Picts and Scots; As, besides what hath been said before, may appear by this one Argument from (q)(q)Scoti-chrom. l. 3. c. 10.Fordon. He saith, That when the Scots made a new Incursion, they open'd Passages in the Wall, from whence it was called Thirle-wall, i. e. saith he, Murus perforatus. Now the Learned (r)(r)Primord. p. 1028.Primate grants, that a Place called Thirle-wall stood on the Borders of Cumberland and Northumberland: And that Fordon saith, Thirle-wall was built by Severus on the Tyne. And therefore Bede seems to have been in the right as to Severus his Wall, but onelyonly mistaken in thinking it was made of Turf before, which was built of Stone by Severus, and accounted one of the great Works of the Roman Empire, which was impossible to be built of Stone a-new by one Legion and the help of the Countrey; But might very well be repaired, and made desensible against the Scots and Picts.

We might now think that the Britains were left by the Romans in a tolerable Condition to defend themselves; But assoon as their old Enemies understood that their old Friends had forsaken them, they came upon them with a greater Force and Violence than ever. And the Spirits of the poor Britains were so broken by their former Miseries, that they were not able to withstand the Assaults of their Enemies: But they forsook their Wall and Forts, and fled as far as they could, and dispersed themselves, which made them an easie Prey to their barbarous Enemies, who now destroyed them in a more cruel manner than they had done before; And those who escaped were driven from their Habitations, and hardly left in a condition to subsist, having no Provision left, but what they did get by Hunting. This is the short account of what Gildas more Tragically inlarges upon. And being thus reduced p. 300to the utmost Extremities, they resolve once more to send to Aêtius their last Groans; and to let him understand how unable they were to stand out against their Enemies, Seeing between them and the Sea they were either drowned or butchered. But all farther assistence was now denied them; Aêtius being then, as (s)(s)Bede, l. 1. c. 13.Bede saith, deeply engaged in the War with Bleda and Attila, Kings of the Hunns. This Message was sent, saith Bede in the 23d. of Theodosius, Aêtius being then third time Consul with Symmachus. But Bleda, according to Prosper and Cassiodore, was killed by Attila two years before Aêtius and Symmachus were Consuls (but one year before according to Marcellinus) but the year following he makes the terrible Invasion of Europe by Attila to be; And so Aêtius having then a Prospect of that War, had just reason to deny Supplies to the Britains. And when Valentinian was VI. Consul, the year before Aêtius and Symmachus, it appears by Valentinian's Letters to him, that he was then in Gaul, for then he directed the famous Constitution De Episcoporum Ordinatione to him there; wherein he interposes his Authority to ratifie Leo's Sentence against Hilary of Arles. But this is sufficient to shew that the Britains Complaints were then sent to Aêtius, and not to any Agitius or Aequitius, as some imagine. (t)(t)Scoti-chron. l. 3. c. 11.Fordon saith, The Britains sent to Agitius and Litorius; But Litorius some years before was beaten, and taken Prisoner by the Goths, as appears by the Fasti Consulares both of Prosper and Cassiodore, and (u)(u)Hist. Misch. l. 14.Paulus Diaconus out of them.

But the Miseries of the Britains were still increased by a Famine which then raged; which was not peculiar to Britain. (w)(w)L. 1. c. 13.Bede saith, That there was then a Famine at Constantinople, and a great Plague which follow'd it, which consumed abundance both of Men and Beasts. Which he borrows from Marcellinus who makes both Famine and Plague to break out the very year Aêtius and Symmachus were Consuls. Both these are mention'd by (x)(x)Euagr. l. 2. c. 6.Euagrius in the Eastern Parts, and therefore are not to be looked on as a peculiar Judgment on the Britains.

p. 301After this, as (y)(y)Gild. § 18. Bed. l. 1. c. 14.Gildas and Bede tell us, finding their Case almost desperate, the Britains were resolved to sell their Lives and Liberties as dear as they could, and by making a fierce Assault upon their Enemies, they began to get the better of them; Which they impute to their trusting rather to Divine Assistence than to the help of Men, which they too much relied upon before. The Britains, as appears afterward, did not want Courage, but Exercise in Arms; being kept under so long by the Romans, they durst not so much as pretend to fighting, for fear of being destroyed; And now the Romans, when they had a mind, could not infuse new Spirits into them; But their own Miseries at last roused and awaken'd them to that degree, that they made their Enemies quiet for some time; And the Irish Robbers, saith Gildas, returned home, intending to return shortly: And the Picts in the farthest part of the Island lay still, onelyonly sometimes making Excursions. This is a considerable passage in Gildas, which shews, that even then the Scots, whom he calls Irish Robbers, were not Inhabitants of any part of Britain. For he calls Ireland their home, as before he said upon the second Devastation (as the Margin of Joselin's Gildas hath it) that they came in their Curroghs over the Scythian Vale, so he calls the Irish Sea; as Nennius calls the Scots, Scytae. But if they had then inhabited in Britain, there had been no use of Curroghs to convey them over, and this had been their proper Home. (x)(x)Scoti-chron. l. 3. c. 10.Fordon seems to have been aware of this Objection, and therefore saith, The Scots and Picts took the Irish in to their Assistence; But Gildas takes notice of no other Scots than those that came out of Ireland, and returned back again. (y)(y)Hist. l. 5. R. 41.Buchanan saith, That upon the Success of Grime against the Britains, many Strangers came in to the Scots Assistence, and had their shares allow'd them in the conquer'd Lands. But he takes no notice of Gildas or Bede's saying, That those very People who fought with the Britains returned home to Ireland; And the Picts were quiet in the utmost parts of the Island; where there is no mention of any third sort of People called the Scots in Britain. But (z)(z)Apparat. ad Hist. Scot. l. 1. c. 3.Dempster undertakes from this place of Gildas to prove, That the Scots and Irish were then distinguished, p. 302because Gildas, after he had mention'd the Scots and Picts, here names the Irish Robbers. It is true, that Gildas before doth mention the Scots and Picts; but in this Place he onelyonly speaks of the Irish and the Picts, which is an Argument on the other side. For either the Scots had no share in these last Incursions, or they must be comprehended under the Name of Irish, having then no settled Habitations elsewhere but in Ireland. But there is one Passage in (a)(a)Gild. § 20.Gildas which seems to imply that it was their Custome to inhabit this Countrey, but Solito more being there used, and they being then supposed out of Britain, the word Inhabit can onelyonly imply making a longer stay here, as they were wont to doe when they had Success. For their coming is described, like that of the Bucaniers in the Westindies, and their Stay was as they liked their Entertainment.

From this time Gildas onelyonly mentions the Vices and the Fears, and another great Plague among the Britains, before he comes to that pernicious Counsel, as he calls it, for sending for the Saxons by Vortigern.

But before I speak of that, while we are upon this Head of the Britains being thus exposed to their Enemies, it will be needfull to enquire what that Legionary Assistence was which is mention'd in the Notitia Imperii, and at what time that was made; For if the Common Opinion be true, that it was made after the time of Honorius, then Britain could not have been left so destitute of Roman Assistence as Gildas and Bede say. For by that Notitia, here in Britain, under the Dux Britanniarum (who seems to have swallow'd up the Power of the Comes Britanniae, whose bare Title is still left in the Notitia) there was the Prefect of the sixth Legion at York, of the Dalmatian Horse at Praesidium, i. e. Warwick, probably first built in the time of Didius Gallus against the Silures, and so continued its Name after, as being a convenient Station to keep under the Provincial Britains; Of the Caspian Horse at Danum, (Doncaster;) Of the Cataphractaerii at Morbium, (Moresby in Cumberland;) and so of others, at Albeia (Ierby in the same Country,) at Dictam (Diganwey in Carnarvanshire,) at Concangii Kendal in Westmoreland,) at Lavatrae (Bowes in Richmondshire,) p. 303at Verterae (Burgh in Westmoreland,) at Brovoniacum (Brongham in the same County,) at Maglona (Macleneth in Montgomery-shire,) at Magi (old Radnor,) at Longovicum (Lanchester in the Bishoprick of Durham,) at Derventio (Aldby in Yorkshire;) And besides these, there were many Cohorts disposed per lineam Valli, along the Wall, as at Segedunum (Seton or Seghill in Northumberland,) Pons Aelii (Ponteland in the same County,) Condercum (Chester in the Street,) Vindohila (Walls-end,) Hunnum (Severshale,) Cilurnum (Silchester in Muro,) Procolitia (Prudlow,) Borcovicus (Borwick,) Vindolana (Winchester,) Aesica (Netherby on the Esk in Cumberland,) Magna (Chester in the Wall,) Amboglana (Ambleside in Westmoreland,) Petrianae (old Perith in Cumberland,) Aballaba (Appleby in Westmoreland,) Congavata (near Caudebec in Cumberland,) Axellodunum (Hexam in Northumberland,) Gabrosentum (Gateshead by Newcastle,) Tunnocelum (Tinmouth,) Glanoventa (a Place upon the Wensbeck, saith our Learned (b)(b)Camd. Brit. p. 669.Antiquary, (whose Judgment in the other I have follow'd) some miles within the Wall;) Alione (upon the River Alne in Cumberland,) Brementuracum (Brampton in the same County,) Olenacum (Elenborough in the same,) Virosidum (Warwick on the Eden.) Now if all the Military Forces lay here so near to the Wall, after the time of Honorius, how came the Britains to have been in such distress? But we have no certainty when this Notitia was made. If it were, as Pancirol conjectures, in the latter end of Theodosius the younger, about Anno Dom. 445. Then all these Roman Forces were certainly withdrawn; and any new Supplies denied by Aêtius in the 23th. of Theodosius; Therefore this Notitia must relate to the Roman Settlement here, before the time that Maximus carried over the Roman Legions, which never returned to that Station which they had before. And although the Title seems to imply that it extended beyond the times of Arcadius and Honorius; yet it cannot be understood of what then was, but of what had been in former times. For that the Britains had then no such Forces among them is apparent by what hath been said already.

p. 304I now come to that fatal Counsel of sending for the Saxons to come to their Assistence. It appears by (c)(c)Gild. § 19, 20, 21, 23.Gildas, That the Britains could come to no Settlement among themselves. For, saith he, They anointed Kings, not according to the Will of God, but such as were more fierce and cruel than others, and not long after they without Examination took them off, and set up worse than they. If any one was more gentle and a Lover of Truth, he was the most hated and maligned, as a Betrayer of his Countrey, they minded not what was pleasing or displeasing to God; or rather the latter was more pleasing to them. They acted still contrary to their own Interest, and there was an universal Degeneracy of Manners in all sorts of men; And those who should have given the best Examples, their Priests and Teachers, were as bad as others; Excessive Drinking, Heats and Animosities, Contentions and Divisions, Envy and Oppression, were then so prevailing that they seemed to have lost all Iudgment of Good and Evil; so that then, he saith, The Saying of the Psalmist was fulfilled, He poureth Contempt upon Princes, and causeth them to wander in the Wilderness, where there is no Way. And when neither Fear of their Enemies nor the Iudgments of God in a raging Pestilence would doe them good, then their Iniquities, saith he, growing full, like the Amorites, they fell into consultation, what was best for them to doe against their Enemies Incursions, and they all agreed to invite the Saxons over to assist them. Upon which he breaks out into a strange Admiration of that Stupidity and Infatuation which the Britains were then under, to call in a Nation to help them whom they dreaded worse than death.

For the Saxons had been terrible for some time before to the British Nation; which was the Occasion of calling the Shore on both sides the Saxon Shore, and setting up such an Admiral here by the Romans, who was called Comes Litoris Saxon per Britanniam. Which shews that the Saxons were then very well known for their great Piracies, and had been so from the time of Carausius: For then, (d)(d)Eutrop. l. 9. c. 19.Eutropius saith, he was employ'd to scour the Seas from the Franks and Saxons who were very troublesome. It appears by (e)(e)Tacit. An. 11.Tacitus, that Gannascus, p. 305with the Chauci, did, in Claudius his time, infest the Gallican shore with Piracy. (f)(f)Zosim. l. 3.Zosimus saith, That the Saxons, who were the stoutest of all the barbarous Nations, sent out the Quadi, a part of their own People, into the Roman Territories. By these Quadi (g)(g)Germ. Antiq. l. 3.Cluverius and (h)(h)Belg. Rom. l. 7. c. 5.Bucherius understand the Cauchi. But (i)(i)Primord. p. 309.Archbishop Vsher shews, That these were neither the Quadi nor the Cauchi, but the Chamavi, from Eunapius, whom Zosimus transcribes, and from Julian himself: But from hence it appears, That the Chamavi were then accounted a part of the Saxons, who, according to (k)(k)Germ. l. 3. c. 14.Cluverius, there lived near the River Amisia, a great way on this side the Elb or the Weser; And Eunapius places them not far from the Rhine. However, this proves, that the Name of Saxons then comprehended Nations of other denominations. But, to make this out, we are to consider, that Zosimus saith, That in the time of Constantius, three German Nations brake forth as it were at once on the Roman Empire; The Franks, the Alemanni and the Saxons; and had taken and destroyed forty Cities on the Rhine. And Saint (l)(l)Hier. vit. Hil.Hierome mentions the Franks, as lying between the Alemanni and the Saxons. These three, as (m)(m)Rer. Germ. l. 1. p. 55.Beatus Rhenanus observes, comprehended the several Nations of Germany; And, as the late Learned Bishop of (n)(n)Mon. Pader…. p. 91.Munster saith, The Saxons was a Name belonging to different, but neighbour Nations, which joyned together upon a common Interest. And, not improbably, had their Name at first from the short Swords they did commonly wear called Sachs; as the Quirites had their Name from Quiris, a sort of Spear; And the Scythians, from Scytten, to shoot with a Bow. (o)(o)Witikind. de Sax. l. 1.Witikindus first mentions this Etymology, which is follow'd by others; but (p)(p)Reiner. de Sax. Origine, p. 10.Reinerus Reneccius and (q)(q)De Weichbild. Saxon. c. 70. n. 5.Gryphiander do much more incline to another derivation, viz. from Sassen, which in the German Tongue is the same with Natives or Inhabitants; And which in the modern Saxon is Saten; as Gross is Grote; and so Holsati are the same with Holt-saten, Men that lived in Woods. But why this, which was common to other Germans, should give a particular denomination to one sort, is not so easie to apprehend: But Tacitus, speaking of some of the Northern Germans, saith, That the p. 306common Badges of them are round Shields and short Swords: And the Arms of Saxony to this day, as (r)(r)Origin. Franc. l. 2. c. 2.Pontanus observes, are two short Swords a-cross. As to those who derive the Saxons from the Sacae of Asia, as though they were Sacasones; although there be Persons of great Name who embrace that Opinion (among whom our (s)(s)Brit. p. 92.Mr. Camden is one) yet I think it no more probable, than that the Germans are derived from the Plowmen of Persia, some whereof, Herodotus saith, were called Germanii. For a bare similitude of Names is no sufficient ground to judge of the Affinity of People; nor the agreement of some Words, as in the German and Persian Languages (which Mr. Camden insists on) to conclude the People of the same Original: Unless there be a probable account withall given, how they came to be propagated from each other, i. e. how the Persian Germans came into these Parts; And how the Sacae left their own Countrey to people Saxony. But under this Name of Saxons, not onelyonly those who originally had that Name, but all those who joined with them, were comprehended. And it is observable, that not one of the three Names of the German Nations then in use was known in Tacitus his time. The Alemanni are first spoken of by (t)(t)Vit. Caracal.Spartianus, in the Life of Caracalla; and, as (u)(u)Hist. l. 1.Agathias saith from Asinius Quadratus, They were an Association of many People together under that Name, as the Word imports. The Name of Franks was first known in the time of (w)(w)Vopisc. in Aurel.Aurelian, and took in several of the old German Names, the Scicambri, Chatti, Tencteri, and many others; Thence (x)(x)Hier. in vit. Hilar.St. Jerome saith, That France was that which Historians called Germany; And so the Saxons was a general Name for the Northern Germans, who chiefly lived upon the Sea-shore, from the Amasis to the Weser and Elb, as far as the Eydor, unto the Cimbrick Chersonese, that had peculiar Appellations. For although the Testimony of (y)(y)Geogr. l. ….Ptolemy be commonly produced for the Saxons living on the back of the Cimbrick Chersonese, yet Mr. Selden's MS. in both places, leaves out the Σ, and Capnio, as (z)(z)Praefat. ad Crantz. Sa….Cisnerus observes, contends, it ought to be read foreign. But I lay no weight upon this. But it is certain, that the People in Tacitus his p. 307time were called Fosi, who lived in the Place where the Saxons are supposed to have been. (a)(a)Germ. Antiq. l. 3. c. 21.Cluverius makes a very unhappy Conjecture, that FOSI, in Tacitus, was corrupted, for SASONI; because they lived in Holstein, and about Sleswick; But it is far more probable, That the Name of Saxons was then generally assumed by the Northern Germans when they joined their Forces together, and resolved to make some Expeditions abroad, as the Franks and Alemanni had done. Which they did with so great Success, that (b)(b)Zosim. l. 5.Zosimus saith, in the time of Julian they went down the Rhine, and drove out the Salii, a Nation of the Franks, out of the Island of the Batavi. But it seems very probable, That the Saxons had placed themselves near the Sea-shore, from the time of Dioclesian, when Carausius was employ'd against them. (c)(c)Hist. l. 7. c. 31.Orosius describes them as a People living on the Sea-shore; and so do Isidore and Paulus Diaconus after him. Ammianus (d)(d)Marcel. l. 27.Marcellinus mentions them, as bordering, in Valentinian's time, on the parts of Gaul as well as the Franks.

But about this Point our two Learned Antiquaries differ, (e)(e)Brit. p. 93.Camden saith, That the Saxons originally came from the Cimbrick Chersonese, in the time of Dioclesian; And after, passing the Elb, they partly went into those parts of the Suevi, which are since called Saxony, and partly into Frisia and Batavia; From whence, he saith, all the Inhabitants of the German shore, who used Piracy at Sea, were called Saxons; by which he understands the People from Jutland to Holland. For which he produces the Testimony of Fabius Ethelwerd, of the Royal Bloud of the Saxons; Who saith, That the Saxons lived upon the Sea Coasts, from the Rhine as far as Denmark. But Archbishop (f)(f)Primord. p. 309.Vsher will not allow, that the Saxons had seated themselves upon those Coasts then, But onelyonly that they did exercise their Piracies along them. He grants, that before Bede's time, the Saxons took Possession of the Places quitted by the Franks, when they went into Gaul, and not onelyonly inhabited on the Coast between the Elb and the Rhine, but in the inner parts of the Countrey; But he denies, that this was before the Saxons coming into Britain. But then Fabius Ethelwerd did not understand where his Countreymen lived before they p. 308came into Britain; And if the Saxons in Valentinian's time, were still onelyonly in the Cimbrick Chersonese, how comes Ammianus Marcellinus to make them to border upon the Parts of Gaul? Are either Jutland or Holstein, or Sleswick, or any of those Countries contiguous to Gaul? Yet his words are, Gallicanos Tractus Franci & Saxones iisdem confines, &c. Which, that it is not to be understood, that the Saxons were Neighbours to the Franks; but that the Franks and Saxons then bordered upon the Gauls, will appear from hence, The Franks were then in Taxandria, as is plain by (g)(g)L. 17.Ammianus his words, in the time of Julian, and in Batavia; and withall, Zosimus speaks of the Salii, who were undoubtedly Franks, being driven out of the Island of the Batavi by some of the Saxons. And this was no Incursion of the Franks, For Ammianus Marcellinus saith, They did there fix their Habitations: And the Chamavi, whom he makes a part of the Saxons, had that Command of the Rhine, that Julian made Peace with them, because without their leave, Corn could not be brought out of Britain, as (h)(h)Excerpt. Legat. p. 15.Eunapius Sardianus saith: And so (i)(i)Orat. Fun.Libanius and (k)(k)Zos. l. 3.Zosimus say, that Julian took greater care for the transporting Corn out of Britain, as had been accustomed, by building more Ships on the Rhine for that Purpose; And (l)(l)L. 18.Ammianus Marcellinus saith, he built Granaries instead of those which were burnt. Such a one the Arx Britannica, in the mouth of the Rhine, was made from a Magazine, and thence probably, saith (m)(m)Brit. p. 852.Camden, had its Name, because the Corn was conveyed thither out of Britain. From thence it follows, that the Saxons so early as Julian's time, had the Command of the Rhine. For, whether these were the Chauci, the Quadi, or the Chamavi; yet Zosimus saith, That they were a People of the Saxons. But it may be said, That this was onelyonly a sudden Incursion, and that they were driven out again by the Roman Forces. So indeed Zosimus and Julian relate it, but how then come the Saxons in Valentinian's time to border still upon Gaul? So that, if they were driven out by Julian, they quickly returned, and fixed their Habitations by the Sea, as the Salii, who were Franks, did in Taxandria; which was more within Land: and where, as (n)(n)Natale Solum Legum Salic. c. 8.Godfrey Wendelin hath endeavoured to p. 309prove, the Salick Law was first made. Which Taxandria; according to him, was bounded by the Maes on the East and North; by the Tamera on the South, and by the Scheld on the West; And here, upon Submission, the Franks were permitted to live; And this was thence forward called Francia Minor, c. 11.and he mentions a place there still called Vranrijck, the Kingdom of France (but a very small one) and others called Seilberg, the Mountain of the Salii, Seelbendens, the Salian Meadows, Seleheim, the House of the Salii: c. 13.But the other Franks being by Stilicho's means driven out of their Possessions beyond the Rhine, they came into the parts about Tongres near to Taxandria, and there joined in one Body; and set up Kings among themselves, as he shews from Gregorious Turonensis, and then they made that Body of Laws, called the Salick Laws. But to return to the Saxons.

(o)(o)Rer. Frisic. l. 1.Vbbo Emmius, a learned and judicious Historian, gives this Account of the Saxons and their Neighbour Nations, who inhabited on the Northern Parts of Germany. The Frisii dwelt from the middle Stream of the Rhine, about Vtrecht, to the River Amasus, (Eems;) From thence to the Elb lived the Chauci, divided into the greater and lesser by the Weser; A great part of these, leaving their Native Soil, joined with the Sicambri on the Rhine, who, from their affecting liberty, were called Franks; beyond the Elb were the Saxons and the Cimbri; These Saxons, being pressed by the more Northern People, or for their own conveniency, came Southwards, and took Possession first of those Places where the Chauci dwelt; And by degrees prevailing, all the other People, who joined with or submitted to the Saxons, were called by their Name:l. 3. and among the rest the Frisii; From whose Coasts he supposes the two Brothers, Hengist and Horsa, to have gon into Britain; and, returning thither, carried over a far greater Number with them, not so much to fight, as to inhabit there. He thinks it most probable, that Hengist and Horsa, by their Descent, were originally Saxons; But that the greatest part of the People who went over with them were rather Frisians than Saxons. Which he proves, not onelyonly from the greater facility of Passage from the Coasts of Friseland, and the Testimony p. 310of their own Annals; but from the greater agreement of the English Language with theirs than with the Saxon or any other German Dialect. And because (p)(p)l. 5. c. 10.Bede reckons the Frisians among those from whom the English are derived; and Wilfrid, Wickbert, Willibrord preach'd to the Frisians in their own Tongue, as he proves from Marcellinus his Life of Suîdbert: And Procopius reckons the Frisians among the Inhabitants of Britain. But he saith farther, That the Affinity of the Languages continues still so very great, that from thence he concludes many more to have gon out of Friseland into Britain, than either of the Saxons, Iutes or Angles.

But to all this our Learned (q)(q)Primord. p. 399, 400.Primate answers, That Hengist and Horsa might be true Frisians, there being a Frisia in the Southern parts of Jutland, which Saxo Grammaticus calls the lesser Frisia, and is parted by the Eidore from the Countrey of the Angli on the East, and of the Saxons on the South. But whatever Suffridus Petrus, or such Authours contend for, as to Hengist and Horsa being originally Frisians, Vbbo Emmius quits that Point upon (r)(r)L. 1. c. 15.Bede's Genealogy, and grants they were Saxons: being the Sons of Victgilsus, whose Father was Vitta, the Son of Vecta, whose Father was Voden, of whose Race the Kings of many Provinces are descended. It doth not seem at all probable, That these lived in the lesser Frisia, which is hardly taken notice of by any but by (s)(s)L. 14.Saxo Grammaticus; and (t)(t)Descript. Daniae.Pontanus tells us, is not above four German miles in length upon the Sea-shore; But suppose that Saxo comprehended Dithmars under it; yet we have no certainty that the Colony of Frisians was removed thither before Hengist and Horsa came for Britain; and Helmoldus seems to imply that it was brought thither by Adolphus II. Count of Holstein, about Anno Dom. 1137. But the Question is not concerning Hengist and Horsa, but the greater Number of the People, which might be still of the greater Frisia; For which the affinity of the Language is a considerable Argument, which doth not depend merely upon the Credit of Marcellinus his Life of Suîdbert, but upon the probability of the thing. For since several English went thither to Preach, and the Affinity of the Language continues so great still, it is a good p. 311Argument to prove, either that the Frisians came over hither, or that the Frisian and Saxon Languages were then the same. And (u)(u)De bello Goth. l. 4. c. 20.Procopius his Testimony is not to be slighted, who places the Frisians in Britain; for, although he calls it Brettia, it is certain he means great Britain, because he places the Angles together with the Frisians in it; So that he might as well question the Angles as the Frisians coming hither; if Procopius his Authority signifie any thing.

I know that our most Learned (w)(w)Primord. p. 419.Primate takes this Brettia for the Island of the Batavi, because Joh. Leidensis saith, That, upon the Saxons Invasion, some of the Britains fled into Holland, and there, in the Mouth of the Rhine, built that famous Castle called Britton, and subdued the People thereabout. But this seems to be very improbable, for any one that looks into the Description of it, in (x)(x)Antiq. Bat. p. 171, &c.Scriverius his Antiquitates Batavicae, will conclude it to have been a Roman Work; which a Person of his Judgment could not but discern; But he saith, it was possessed then by the Britains: Which depends wholly on the Credit of this Joh. Gerbrandus of Leyden, who was a late Writer, and of no great Esteem with him, as appears by many Passages in his Book: But how came the Angles to live here with the Frisians and Britains? For that the same Gerbrandus is cited, who saith, That when part of Hengist's Army was driven out of Britain, they built the Castle of Leyden. And so we have the Britains dwelling there, being driven out by the Saxons; and the Saxons driven out by the Britains; onelyonly to make this to be the Island Brettia, in Procopius, distinct from Great Britain. But to proceed.

(y)(y)Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 3.Sir 50:1Adamus Bremensis, who lived near to Jutland, saith, That the Saxons, who went over into Britain, lived near the Rhine. (z)(z)Chron. p. 111.Engelhusius, lately published out of MSS. by Maderus, and who lived in the lower Saxony, saith, That Hengist and Horsa went out of Westphalia, from a Place called Enghere, and instead of Engerschen, called themselves Engelschen. (a)(a)De Orig. Fris. l. 2. c. 15.Suffridus Petrus saith, Those People were called Angrivarii, and the Countrey Angria, which was subdued by Udolphus, Father to Hengist and Horsa, and Prince of Frisia; But their p. 312Mother's Name was Suana, Daughter to Vectgistus, a great Man about Hamburgh. If he suppose Hamburgh then built, he was extremely mistaken; for it was onelyonly a Castle erected on the Elb, in the time of Charles the Great, for preventing the Incursion of the Sclavi, as appears by the Testimonies of (b)(b)Annal. A D. 810, 811.Eginhardus, and (c)(c)Stad. A. D. 810.Albertus Stadensis: After which he built a City, and founded a Church there, as Adamus Bremensis and Helmoldus agree; Which City had its Name from a Neighbour Wood, called in the Saxon, Hamme; as (d)(d)Orig. Hambag. p. 13.Lambecius saith, in Ditmarse there are two Woods still called Suderhamme and Norderhamme. But to return to Suffrifridus; When, according to Custome, saith he, a Colony of Frisians was to be drawn out, Hengist and Horsa were their Captains, and so went for old England, or Anglen in Jutland, where they were kindly received, by means of Vetgistus; and from thence took the opportunity of coming into Britain. From hence he finds fault with Crantzius, for making Angria in Westphalia to be Old Anglen; and saith, That Bede onelyonly reckons the Mother's Line, and not the Father's. But his Occa Scarlensis, on whom he chiefly relies, is much such another Authour as Hunibaldus, or Geffrey, or Hector's Veremundus; and therefore I shall say no more of him. For, I perceive, scarce any of the Northern Nations wanted such Authours who endeavour'd to supply the defect of their Histories by their own Inventions. So that it is necessary to lay open the pretended Antiquities in order to the setting forth the true.

The late Bishop of (e)(e)Monum. Paderbourn. p. 88.Munster, a Person of far greater Judgment and Learning than Suffridus Petrus, calls his Originals of the Saxons by no better a Title than of Canorae Nugae, Sounding Trifles, having no foundation in good Authority. The Account he gives of the Saxons is this, That they at first lived beyond the Elb, where they had the same Situation with Tacitus his Angli, p. 90, &c.whom he makes the farthest of the Suevi, and therefore might well be the same People; That in Bede's time they were come on this side the Weser, and were settled in Westphalia; and so they made a threefold Saxony of the Ostphali, Angrivarii and Westphali, who were called Olt-saxons by Bede and others: Not that p. 313these were all originally Saxons; But they bore the same Name, being united in one common League; So that, as all the Germans which went into Gaul were called Franks, so those who prevailed in Germany and went into Britain, were called Saxons.

But (f)(f)Atlantic. c. 21. § 16.Olaus Rudbeck, after all, hath found the Seat of the Saxons more North than Jutland, where, saith he, The Name of the Saxons could never yet be found; and where are no Mountains to be met with upon which Ptolemy places them on the back of the Cimbrick Chersonese, but in that part of Sweden which lies between Vermelandia and Angermannia he hath found Norsaxen, and Sodersaxen, and Saxehundari, and Saxewall, and Saxen, &c. c. 24. § 16.And in Smaland he hath discovered many Places taken from the Angles, as Anglested Hundred, Angloridia, Anglodorpia, Engelbeck, &c.

But for our better understanding the Condition of that People who were called in by the Britains, it will be most material to consider what is said of them by those who descended from them, and lived here not long after their coming.

(g)(g)L. 1. c. 15.Bede, who was himself a Saxon, and lived nearest the time of the Saxons coming hither, must be presumed to have understood best who they were, and whence they came. And although at the beginning he makes the Angles and Saxons all one, saying, the Angles or Saxons, being invited by King Vortigern, came hither in three Keels or long Boats at first; yet when he adds, that Numbers came afterwards, he then distinguisheth them into three distinct sorts of People, viz. the Saxons, Angles and Jutes. The Saxons, he saith, came from that Place which was then called Saxony; The Angles, from the Countrey called Angulus, which remained desart to this day, and lay between the Provinces of the Jutes and Saxons. And much to the same purpose (h)(h)Ethelw. l. 1.Fabius Ethelwerd; onelyonly he saith, that they came de Saxonia, Anglia atque Giota. Saxony, he saith, was then called Ealdsexe; and for Anglia, he saith, it lay between the Saxons and the Gioti, whose chief Town in the Saxon Tongue was called Sleswic, and by the Danes, Haithaby. But, by this Account, all these People who came hither to assist the Britains, and after conquer'd p. 314them, and possessed their Land, must come out of that Chersonese called Jutland, taking it in the largest extent, not onelyonly to the Eidore, but from the Eidore to the Elb. For if the Angli came from about Sleswic, and lay between the Jutes and the Old Saxons; then the Jutes possessed all that part of the Chersonese which is now called the Northern Iutland: and the Southern Iutland takes within it all that was possessed by the Angli, which reached no farther than between Sleswic and Flensburgh, which in the modern Maps is still called Angelen; And so the Countrey lying between the Elb and the Eidore, comprehending Hostein, Dithmars and Stormar, must be the Seat of the Old Saxons; which, by (i)(i)L. 2. c. 8.Adamus Bremensis and (k)(k)L. 1. c. 5.Helmoldus, is called Nortalbingia; and, by (l)(l)A. D. 785.Eginhartus, Saxonia Transalbiana; by (m)(m)Stad. A. 785.Albertus Stadensis, Transalbia; where the Saxons remained in so great Numbers that Charles the Great could not totally subdue them, till after a War of above thirty years, as the foremention'd Authours assure us. And (n)(n)Vit. Caroli.Eginhartus, whose Authority is unquestionable, saith, That Charles had no War more tedious or more fierce than that which he had with the Saxons; And in the conclusion of it, he was forced to remove 10000 Saxons on both sides the River Elb, and to disperse them in several Parts of the Empire. And as to that part of Jutland which Bede saith was left desolate to his time upon the remove of the Angli; (o)(o)De Situ Daniae.Adamus Bremensis gives another Reason for it, saying, That Jutland was the most uncultivated part of all Germany, and the least fit for humane habitation, being so barren and unfruitfull, and so obnoxious to Pirates from both Seas. But since the Saxons, Angles and Jutes, coming into Britain, took Possession of so great a part of it, as our Historians tell us, viz. The Jutes, Kent, the Isle of Wight and part of Hampshire; The Saxons, Sussex, Essex, Middlesex, the South part of Hartfordshire, Surrey, the other part of Hampshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire, Dorsetshire, Somersetshire, Devonshire and part of Cornwall; The Angles, Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, the Midland and Northern Counties; It deserves to be considered whether, since there were so few Inhabitants then in Jutland and so many Saxons left behind, there be not far greater p. 315probability that these should come from all the Maritime Coasts from the Rhine to Jutland, than merely out of such an unpeopled Countrey as that was. I do not deny the distinction of People that Bede mentions, nor their coming originally out of Jutland, or rather through Jutland: But, I think, all Circumstances considered, it is more probable that the Saxons, before that time, were come nearer to the Rhine, and so had greater Conveniency of removing themselves over in such great Numbers into Britain, as they did upon Vortigern's Invitation, and the Discontents which soon happen'd between the Saxons and the Britains.

And it is observable, That those who inlarge the Bounds of the Saxons do take notice of a difference in their Situation agreeable to what Bede saith; For (p)(p)De Orig. Sam. p. 11.Reinerus Reineccius, a Learned German Antiquary, saith, The Saxons were divided into three sorts, the Ostvali, or the Eastern Saxons, whom the Old Saxon Poet calls Osterlingi, whose Limits extended, he saith, as far as the Slavi, i. e. beyond the River Elb; the Westvali, whose Bounds, he saith, came very near the Rhine; And between these, he saith, were the Angarii, just as Bede puts his Angli, between the Jutes and the Saxons.

Inter praedictos media Regione morantur

Angarii, Populus Saxonum tertius—

If this Division of the Saxons be allow'd, we have here scope enough for all those People to live in who came over into Britain, and number enough to come hither, and yet not to leave the Places desolate whence they came. And it is not improbable that the Northern Nations thrusting one another forwards, for a greater Conveniency of living, those Saxons who lived about Holstein might come into Westphaliae, and so be nearest to the Rhine; The Angli came into the Place where the Angrivarii are seated; And the most remote Inhabitants of the Chersonese, would then be the Osterlings or the Eastern Saxons. This, upon the whole matter, seems to me the most probable way of reconciling what Bede saith with the Circumstances of those times, and with the Frisians coming in together with the p. 316Saxons, which he elsewhere expresly affirms, as is already shew'd.

As to the time of the Saxons coming into Britain, in the common printed Copies of Bede, it is said to have been Anno Dom. 409. and so it is in the late Edition by Chiffletius, out of the old MS. of S. Maximin at Triers; But that cannot be true, because Martianus is said to be Emperour at the same time. But in the Chronology, at the end of that Edition, it is said to have been Anno Dom. 449. to which Mr. Wheelock's MS. agrees; and Asserius Menevensis, in his Annals; which is follow'd by Fabius Ethelwerd, the Old Saxon Annals, William of Malmsbury, Henry Huntingdon, Matth. Westminster, and others. Florentius Wigorniensis, who generally follows Marianus Scotus, places it in the following year; Valentinianus and Avienus, Consuls; but, according to Marianus Scotus, in the Basil Edition, they were Consuls the year before Martianus was Emperour, and he makes their coming in to have been when Herculanus and Asporatius were Consuls, Anno Dom. 453. But Archbishop (q)(q)Primord. p. 405.Vsher saith, That appears by the Fasti to have been Anno Dom. 452. or the second of Martianus, by Cassiodore. Two Characters of the time are certain; viz. that it was after the third Consulship of Aêtius, and the Death of Theodosius; And therefore it is to be wondred Mr. (r)(r)Brit. p. 95.Camden should so confidently affirm that it was before Anno Dom. 449. But there are three things he goes upon which must be consider'd. First, That Vortigern's Death was before St. German's return; But St. German died Anno Dom. 435. And therefore the coming in of the Saxons must be some time before. As to Vortigern's Death, before St. German's return, he produces onelyonly the Testimony of Nennius, who, in the Affairs of Vortigern, doth Romance so much, That even Geffrey of Monmouth was ashamed to follow him. But as to the time of St. German's Death, there are very convincing Arguments to prove Camden mistaken. (s)(s)Vincent. Bar. SS. Lerinens. Vit. p. 112.Honoratus, in the Life of Hilary, Bishop of Arles, mentions St. German as present when Chelidonius was deposed by Hilary in his Visitation; which (t)(t)Concil. Gall. To. 1. p. 79.Sirmondus placeth not without Reason, Anno Dom. 444. as appears by the Epistle of Leo and the Rescript of Valentinian upon p. 317Chelidonius his Appeal, which bears date, Anno Dom. 445. But which is yet more considerable, (u)(u)L. 1. c. 21.Bede saith, That after his second return he went on an Embassy to Ravenna, and was there kindly received by Valentinian and Placidia, and there died; And, not long after, Valentinian was killed in the sixth of Martianus: And therefore St. German's Death could not be so soon as Mr. Camden supposeth. Add to this, that Constantius, in his Life of St. German saith, That he sate thirty years after St. Amator in his See, who died Anno Dom. 418. But the Sammarthani say, Anno Dom. 420.

As to the Testimony of Prosper Tiro, who saith, That Britain was brought under the Power of the Saxons, the 18^th. of Theodosius, it plainly contradicts Gildas; For this was before the third Consulship of Aêtius, which was five years after; And in matters of the British History, Gildas certainly deserves the greater Credit, supposing it were the true Prosper.

His last Argument is from the Calculation, at the end of Nennius, on which he lays the greatest Weight; which makes their coming in to be when Felix and Taurus were Consuls, which agrees with Anno Dom. 428. But this was near twenty years before the third Consulship of Aêtius, when the Britains were not yet in despair of Assistence from the Romans; Before which they never sought for the Saxons. And I confess the Authority of Gildas and Bede, with the Series of the British and Roman Affairs at that time sway much more with me than such an Anonymous Calculation.

It is a strange mistake of (w)(w)Rer. Francis. l. 3. p. 143.Hadrianus Valesius, to make Vortigern, King of the Angles, who were hired to assist the Britains; But the Ambiguity of the words in (x)(x)Hist. l. 14.Paulus Diaconus seem to have been the occasion of it: which had been easily prevented by looking into Bede: And so had another Mistake in the same place, viz. That onelyonly the Angles, and not the Saxons, were invited over: For Bede saith expresly, That the Britains, with their King Vortigern, agreed to send for the Saxons; But it is a third mistake, when he saith, That the Saxons before this time had a part of the Island near to the Picts; Which he proves from the Words of Constantius as to their joining with the Picts in one of their Battels. p. 318But the Saxons did frequently make Incursions before, and in one of them might join with the other Enemies of the Britains, which is a very different thing from Inhabiting in any Part of the Island, which we have no Evidence that they did, till they were called in by the Britains.

The Saxons having received such an Invitation from the Britains were unwilling to let slip so fair an Opportunity of coming into that Land, by the consent of Prince and People whose Shores they had so long infested. (y)(y)L. 1. c. 14.Bede saith, There was a particular Providence of God in it, to make them the Scourges of the Peoples wickedness. (z)(z)Gild. § 23.Gildas imputes it to mere Sottishness and Infatuation. (a)(a)Nenn. c. 28.Nennius intimates some Domestick Fear that was the Occasion of Vortigern's sending for the Saxons, as well as that of their common Enemies, i. e. he was very apprehensive of a sudden Rising of the Roman Party yet left in the Island, and of Ambrosius. But he leaves it wholly in the dark, who this Ambrosius was, and what Cause Vortigern had to be afraid of him. (b)(b)Gild. § 25.Gildas speaks of Ambrosius Aurelianus, as of a modest Man, and as almost the onelyonly person of the Roman Nation then surviving, whose Parents were killed enjoying the Purple, and whose Posterity was living in Gildas his time, but much degenerated from the Vertues of their Ancestours. This is the onelyonly Passage which gives us any light into this matter which is repeated by (c)(c)L. 1. c. 16.Bede, who more plainly saith, That his Parents had Royal Authority, and were killed. Who these Parents of his were we are left onelyonly to conjecture. The (d)(d)Galfr. l. 2. c. 6.British History would clear the matter, if it deserved Credit, for there we reade, That Aurelius Ambrosius was one of the younger Sons of Constantine, King of Britain, who was forced to fly from Vortigern after the Murther of their Brother Constans by his contrivance. But we know that Constantine and his Sons, Constans and Julian, were killed abroad; and it is not probable the Romans would have permitted any one of his Sons to have remained here; or, if they did, this Ambrosius must have been of Ripe years for Government long before this time. For Constantine's Life was taken away when Theodosius was IV. Consul, as Idatius and Marcellinus agree, Anno Dom. 411. So that p. 319Ambrosius could not be very young when Vortigern took the Government, in whose fourth year, they say, The Saxons were called in. But there is another Passage in Gildas which helps to explain this: For he saith, That after they found themselves deserted by the Romans, they set up Kings of their own, and soon after put them down again, and made choice of worse in their room; This setting up of Kings he expresses by their being anointed; whether that Custome were then used or not, it is plain, that he supposes that the Britains, in that Confusion they were in, took upon them, without regard to their Duty, to place and displace them. But that he takes anointing in a metaphorical Sense appears by what follows, That the Anointers were those who destroy'd them. Among these in all probability was the Father of Ambrosius, and the rather because, it is said, he was of Roman Descent: For the Britains thought none then able to defend them that had not a Roman Spirit in him. At this time the Britains were left to their full Liberty by the Roman Empire, which, as (e)(e)L. 1. c. 11.Bede reckons, had the Dominion here for 470 years; And then there was no Line remaining to succeed in the Government, nor so much as to determine their choice, which made them so easily to make and unmake their Kings, who lost their Purple and their Lives together. This must needs breed infinite Confusions among them; and every one who came to be King lived in perpetual fear of being served as others had been before him; And the natural consequence of this Jealousie of their own Subjects was, looking out for Assistence from abroad, which I doubt not was one great Reason of Vortigern's sending for the Saxons, hoping to secure himself by their means against his own People: although it proved at last the Ruine both of himself and his People. But this Jealousie could not but increase upon them, while there was a Person descended from a former King, and of Roman Parentage in being; So that Nennius seems to have hit upon one of the main Reasons which sway'd Vortigern to send for the Saxons.

(f)(f)Hist. of Gavelkind, p. 40.Some have gon about to defend Vortigern so far as to say, That he took the most prudent course he could for the benefit and security of his Subjects, by placing the p. 320Saxons upon the Picts Wall, and upon the Kentish Shores, which were thought fit to be secured by the Romans. But, against whom? Was it not against these very Saxons? And is it the best way to secure the Flock, to set the Wolves to watch them? If they had the Command of those Shores, could not they let in what Numbers they pleased of their own People to strengthen themselves against the Britains? And, was this for the Peoples Security? What Success had there been in that Age, in letting in the Barbarous Nations upon the several parts of the Roman Empire? And, what could be expected in such a Condition as the Britains were in, otherwise than what did happen when a fierce, ungovernable, military People were called in to defend a Nation so long kept under, and wholly almost unacquainted with the exercise of Brutish Valour, and unexperienced in the Arts of War? Especially when the Air, Situation, Fruitfulness and all sorts of Conveniencies were so much above those of the Countrey which they came from? So that Gildas seems to have a great deal of Reason, when he attributes this Act of Vortigern's, with a respect to the Nation, to mere Sottishness and Infatuation.

(g)(g)De Gest. Sax. p. 3.Witikindus tells a formal Story of a Speech made by the British Ambassadours to the Saxons, wherein they magnifie the Saxons courage, and lament their own Miseries, and in short tell them, If they would come and help them, their Land and themselves would be at their Service, for they knew none more worthy to command them, since the Romans had left them. But neither Bede nor Ethelwerd, although both Saxons, mention the least Promise of Submission; And it is apparent by their Quarrel with the Britains afterwards, that they came as Mercenary Souldiers, upon promise of Pay. For (h)(h)Gild. § 23.Gildas saith, The first Pretence of Quarrelling was for greater allowance, which he calls their Epimenia, and Bede, Annonae: Which shews upon what Terms they came. And Witikindus himself makes no other Pretence for their Rising against the Britains, but that the Countrey pleased them, and they found they were able to subdue the Inhabitants. For after Hengist and his Company had tasted the Sweetness of it, they never left Wheedling that weak and vitious King (as all describe p. 321him) with fair Promises, and necessity of more Succours to secure himself and to defend his Countrey, till they had by degrees got over Strength enough to bid defiance to the Britains. At first they seem'd very zealous and hearty against their common Enemies, and did great Service in beating the Picts and Scots; insomuch that (i)(i)Hist. l. 5.Buchanan confesses, they were driven beyond Adrian's Wall; And some think their King Eugenius was then killed. (k)(k)Scoti-chron. l. 3. c. 13, 14.Fordon saith, They went into Albany, and brought away great booty from thence; and confesses, that he found in a certain History, that he was killed South of Humber, by the Britains and the English. And it is easie to imagine how insolent such a Barbarous People would grow upon their Success, when they knew the Britains durst not oppose them. (l)(l)L. 1. c. 15.Bede saith, That they entred into a secret League with the Picts and the Scots after they had beaten them, and then took occasion to quarrell with the Britains; OnelyOnly they still endeavour'd to keep Vortigern firm to them. To this purpose (m)(m)Nenn. c. 37.Nennius tells the Story of Hengist's fair Daughter Rovena, and how Vortigern was insnared by her, to the great dissatisfaction of the Britains. Hector Boethius saith, That Vodinus, Bishop of London, was killed by Hengist, for reproving Vortigern for that Marriage; But we must not be too strict upon Hector to put him to produce his Vouchers. And the (n)(n)L. 3. c. 1.British History adds, that Hengist, being a subtile Man, insinuated still into Vortigern, That his own People did not love him, and that they would depose him, and set up Aurelius Ambrosius: and by such Arts they widen'd the Distance between him and his People, when they designed nothing less than the destruction of both.

It is certain, by what Gildas and Bede have left, that these heats soon brake out into open Flames, to the Ruine and Desolation of the Countrey: But how the War began, and by what means it was first managed on the British side is not so clear. But (o)(o)Nenn. c. 3….Nennius saith, That when Vortigern's wickedness grew so great as to marry his own Daughter, he was condemned in solemn Council of the British Nation both Clergy and Laity, and upon the Advice of his Nobles, he withdrew himself from Affairs to a private Castle. But the (p)(p)L. 3. c. 2.British History makes it p. 322worse, viz. That the Britains forsook him, and set up his Son Vortimer, who behaved himself with great Courage and Resolution against the Saxons; And then reckons up four Battels, which he fought with them; The first upon the Derwent, the second at Episford, or rather Alesford, the third upon the Sea-shore, when he drove them into their Ships, and so home; but the fourth is not mention'd; After which Geffrey relates Vortimer's being poison'd by his Mother-in-law, and the restoring of Vortigern, and his calling for the Saxons back again. (q)(q)Nenn. c. 45.Nennius speaks of Vortimer's fighting with Hengist and Horsus, and adds his Success to have been so great, as to have driven them into the Isle of Thanet, and that there he besieged, and beat, and terrified them to that degree, That they sent into Germany for fresh Succours; by which they were enabled to manage the War with various Success against the Britains. And then reckons up the three Battels, just as Geffrey doth; OnelyOnly the last, he saith, was upon the Sea-shore, juxta lapidem tituli; a little after which, he saith, that Vortimer died without any mention of Poison; But, he saith, before his death he gave command to have his Body buried on the Sea-shore, where the Saxons fled; which was neglected, and to which Nennius imputes their Return, after which they could never be driven out. Because, as he saith, It was the Divine Pleasure more than their own Valour which made them settle here. And it is he that orders and rules the Nations of the Earth; And who can resist his Will? It is plain by all this, that Nennius consulted the Honour of the British Nation as much as it was possible, and nowhere useth that freedom which Gildas doth, in setting forth the great Sins among them which provoked God to punish them in so severe a manner.