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

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

p. 322The Place where Vortimer desired to be buried is called by Nennius, Lapis Tituli; from whence (r)(r)Brit. p. 240.Camden and Archbishop (s)(s)Primord. p. 413.Vsher conceive it to be Stonar in the Isle of Thanet, near Richborrow; but Nennius saith onelyonly, It was upon the Shore of the French Sea; From whence Mr. (t)(t)Roman Ports and Forts in Kent MS.Somner rather concludes it to be Folkstone in Kent, because of its lofty Situation, whereas Stonar lies in a low and flat level, apt to Inundations; But then Nennius must have mistaken Lapis Tituli, for p. 323Lapis Populi; and, I dare say, Nennius was guilty of greater mistakes than that. But, he farther observes, that in the ancient Records, the name is not Stonar, but Estonar, which signifies the Eastern Border, Shore or Coast.

(u)(u)Mat. Westm. A. D. 454.Matthew of Westminster gives this Account of these Proceedings: That the British Nobility, forsaking Vortigern, set up Vortimer, who, with their Assistence, pursued the Saxons to Derwent, and there killed many of them. Which seems to have been Darent in Kent; thence Dartford, as (w)(w)Brit. p. 233.Camden observes, is the same with Darenford. But he makes Vortigern to have fled away with the Saxon Army, and to have given them all the Assistence he could: And then, saith he, Vortimer began to restore the Britains Possessions to them, and to rebuild their Churches, and to shew kindness to the Churchmen. The next year, he saith, The Saxons fought again with the Britains at Ailesford; and after a sharp Fight the Saxons fled, and great multitudes of them were slain; Not long after Vortimer, with his Brothers Catigern and Pascentius, and the whole Nation of the Britains made War with the Saxons, and in Battel Catigern was killed by Horsus, and Horsus by Vortimer, upon which the Saxon Army fled. The next year, he saith, Hengist fought three Battels with Vortimer, and at last he was forced to go back into Germany, and four years after, Vortimer, saith he, was poison'd, Anno Dom. 460. and buried in London, and then Vortigern recalled the Saxons.

(x)(x)De Gestis Reg. l. 1. c. 1.William of Malmsbury saith, That the Britains and Saxons agreed for seven years after their Landing, and then Vortimer, finding their Deceit, incensed his Father and the Britains against them, and so for twenty years there was continual War and light Skirmishes, and four pitched Battels. In the first he makes their Fortune equal, Horsa being killed on one side, and Catigis on the other. In the rest, the Saxons being always superiour, and Vortimer dead, a Peace was made; And so the Britains Affairs went ill, till Ambrosius recover'd them.

(y)(y)Hist. l. 2.Henry of Huntingdon relates this Story after a different manner: He tells us, That Vortigern, after p. 324the Marriage of Hengist's Daughter was so hated, that he withdrew to the Mountains and Woods, and that he and his Castle were consumed together. After which Ambrosius Aurelianus, with Vortigern's two Sons, Vortimer and Catiger, fought the Saxons; And he makes the first Battel at Ailestreu or Elstree, the next after Vortimer's Death at Creganford or Crayford, in which, he saith, the Britains were quite beaten out of Kent, and from thence he begins the Saxons Kingdom of Kent; The next, he saith, was at Wippedsflede, which was so terrible on both Sides, That from thence he saith, That the Saxons and Britains did not disturb each other for a great while, they remaining within Kent, and the Britains quarrelling among themselves.

(z)(z)Chronic. A. D. 455.Florentius Wigorniensis therein differs from the rest, that he makes the Battel at Aegelsthrep to have been between Vortigern and Hengist; But, he saith, after the Battel at Creccanford, the Britains fled to London, and left Kent to the Saxons: Wherein he follows the Saxon Annals; as he doth in the Account of the two other Battels; that at Wippedsfleot, and that which he calls the great Victory over the Britains by Hengist and Esca his Son; which he places Anno Dom. 473. when he saith, the Britains fled from the Saxons as from Fire.

(a)(a)Chronic. l. 1.Fabius Ethelwerd agrees with the Saxon Annals and Florentius in these Particulars; And so doth Asserius in his MSS. Annals, as to Vortigern's fighting with Hengist. Wherein they very much differ from the British Traditions; But after the Translation of the British History by Geffrey, the Monkish Historians generally follow that, as to the Success of these Battels, and as to the Treachery used towards Vortigern by Hengist, upon Salisbury Plain, near Ambresbury; Where it is said by Geffrey, that the Saxons killed 470 of the British Nobility, under a Pretence of a Treaty of Peace; (b)(b)Nenn. c. 49.Nennius saith but 300; and that Vortigern was then taken, and was forced to give Estsex, Suthsex and Middlesex for his Redemption.

This Story passes for current among the Monks and our late Collectours of English History: And that which seems to add most weight to it is, That William of p. 325Malmsbury relates it, but he reports it much as he found it in Nennius, onelyonly inlarging on the drinking part, that went before the Massacre. But when I find the same Story in effect in (c)(c)De Gestis Sax. l. 1.Witikindus, between the Saxons and the Thuringers, and the very same Word given NEM ET EOVR SEAXES, I am apt to think one was borrowed from the other. But I cannot but take notice of the Disingenuity of (d)(d)Verstegan. p. 142.Verstegan, who lays this to the Charge of the Thuringers, whereas Witikindus not onelyonly saith, the Saxons did it, but adds, That the Saxons struck terrour into their Neighbours by it, and saith, They were thought to have their Name from it, as Verstegan himself thinks; Which were ridiculous, unless the Seaxes belong'd to the Saxons.

All the certainty we have as to the matter of the Proceedings between the Britains and Saxons is, what (e)(e)Gild. § 24.Gildas relates, which is very Tragical, viz. That all the Cities and Churches were burnt to the Ground, from the East to the Western Ocean; The Inhabitants destroyed by the Sword or buried in the Ruines of Houses and Altars which were defiled with the Bloud of the Slain; in which horrible Devastation, the Rulers of the Church and the Priests suffered together with the Common People. So that he applies to this Desolation the Words of the Psalmist, They have cast Fire into thy Sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling Place of thy Name to the Ground. And, O God, the Heathen are come into thine Inheritance, thy holy Temple have they defiled, &c. And (f)(f)Bed. l. 1▪ c. 15.Bede saith, A Fire was kindled by the hands of the Heathens, which executed Vengeance on God's People for their Sins, not unlike that of the Chaldeans which burnt Jerusalemto the Ground: So here, saith he, the wicked Conquerour prevailing, or rather the just Judge so disposing, there seem'd to be one continued Flame from one Sea to another; All publick and private Buildings demolished, the Priests Bloud spilt upon the Altars, the Prelates and People destroy'd together by Fire and Sword, and no Man durst to give them Burial. Many of those that escaped at present, as (g)(g)Gild. § 29.Gildas saith, had their Throats cut, and were thrown on Heaps in the p. 326Mountains, or delivered themselves up to Slavery, to avoid being famished, and thought it a Favour to be presently dispatched, and others hid themselves among Mountains and Rocks and Woods to escape the Fury of their Enemies, where they lived in continual Fear; and others went over into foreign parts: Which was the Foundation of the Aremorican Colony of Britains; as will appear afterwards.

But that which prevented a total Destruction of the Britains now was, that it seems both by (h)(h)Gild. § 25.Gildas and (i)(i)Bed. l. 1. c. 16.Bede, the Saxons having burnt so many Cities and Towns, and driven the Remainder of the Inhabitants into inaccessible Places, did go home for some time, And in that Interval, the dispersed Britains gathered together, and after most earnest Supplications to God, that they might not be utterly destroyed, they made choice of Ambrosius Aurelianus, as their King; and, under his Conduct, God was pleased to give them Success: And, from that time, saith Gildas, now one Party prevailed, and then another (whereby God made a farther Tryal of the Britains, whether they would love him or not) to the Battel on Badon Hill, wherein the Saxons suffer'd so great a Loss; Which was forty four years after their first coming hither, as appears more plainly by Bede. But Gildas adds, even at this time their Cities were far from being inhabited as formerly; And when their Enemies gave them respite, they desperately quarrell'd among themselves. So that we have here a Conjunction of so much Severity and Patience, such Fears and Hopes, and yet such Defeating of these Hopes, by their own Follies and Divisions, as commonly forerun a Churches Destruction and a Peoples Ruine.

This is the best and truest Account of the British Affairs from the Saxons coming till the Government of Ambrosius, by which we are to judge of the probability of Nennius his Traditions.

As to the particular Conduct of the British Affairs under Ambrosius, we have little more light than what Traditions and Conjectures give us. However, it may not be amiss to lay together what we can find about them.

p. 327(k)(k)Nenn. c. 45.Nennius saith little more of him, than that Vortigern was afraid of him: and afterwards he confounds him with Merlin, when he tells Vortigern, after the Story of his being without a Father, that he concealed his Father's Name out of Fear, but that his Father was one of the Roman Consuls; and so Vortigern gave him the command of the Western parts of Britain.

But (l)(l)Galfr. l. c. 1, 2, 3.Geffrey gives a more ample account of him, not onelyonly that he was one of Constantine's Sons; But that he, understanding the condition of the Britains, came over from Aremorica with his Brother Vther Pendragon and considerable Forces, and after his Revenge upon Vortigern, burning him in his Castle, he makes the Saxons to retire beyond Humber, through the terrour of his Name; Whither Aurelius pursued them, and overcame Hengist in a set Battel, who fled to Caer Conan or Conisburgh, where they fought again, and Hengist was taken by Eldol, Duke of Gloucester, and beheaded by him, according to the Advice of Eldad, then Bishop of Gloucester.

(m)(m)Flores Hist. A. D. 487, 480.Matthew Westminster transcribes these Passages out of Geffrey, and puts them to such years as he fansied; but it is observable that he makes Aurelius Ambrosius to have fought the Battel at Wippeds fleet with Hengist and his Son Aesc, 16 years before this; which according to him was seven years after his coming into Britain: So that even Matthew Westminster durst not wholly rely on Geffrey's Relation. But, as to the death of Hengist, Florentius saith, he died after he had reigned in Kent thirty four years, and Aesca succeeded him, Anno Dom. 488. The Saxon Annals take no notice of Hengist's death, but place Aesc's Reign Anno Dom. 487.

(n)(n)Huntingd. l. 2.Henry of Huntingdon saith, That Hengist died the fortieth year after his coming into Britain, the 39th. saith William of Malmsbury. But neither of them mentions any violent Death by the hands of his Enemies, and that after a Victory by the Britains under Aurelius Ambrosius; which are such Circumstances they could not easily have omitted, if they had then heard of them. But if they had heard of them, and yet left them out, it is a shrewd Sign, they gave no Credit to them. We are then to consider, that Geffrey of Monmouth, according p. 328to Leland, flourished in the time of H. I. Of King Stephen say Bale and Pits; but Leland observes, That he dedicated his Translation of Merlin to Alexander Bishop of Lincoln, the same that was Henry of Huntingdon's Patron: And William of Malmsbury dedicates his History to the same Robert of Gloucester, Son to Henry I. to whom Geffrey dedicates his Translation of the British History, who died 12 of King Stephen. So that in all probability Geffrey's Book was seen by both these Historians, and since they do not follow him where they have occasion to mention the same matters, They plainly discover they preferr'd Nennius before him, whom both of them follow; But it appears by H. Huntingdon he then passed under the Name of Gildas.

But these two Historians thought it best for them to decline taking any publick notice of Geffrey's History, it being so great a Novelty then, and probably enough in some esteem with Robert of Gloucester, whose Father, as (o)(o)Cambr. l. 2. c. 1.Giraldus Cambrensis saith, had lately subdued the Britains in Wales; and such a History seemed to add to his Father's Glory. But after Robert's death, William of Newborough very frankly delivers his Opinion of it, charging the Original with Falshood, and the Translatour with Insincerity. Geffrey, in the Conclusion of his History, mentions William of Malmsbury and H. of Huntingdon, as then Writing the English History; But he bids them not to meddle with the British Kings, since they had not the British MS. which Walter of Oxford brought out of Britany. But they do not forbear to make use of Nennius; and Huntingdon transcribes several things out of him; But they do not inlarge or alter or adorn their History in one Point from the British MS. although in all likelyhood set forth before their Death.

As to what he next adds, That after his Victory over the Saxons, Aurelius Ambrosius called the Princes and Great Men together at York, and gave order for repairing the Churches which the Saxons destroyed, there is far greater probability in it. For after the Battel at Wippedsfleet, which was seventeen years after the Saxons coming; H. Huntingdon saith, Things remained quiet for p. 329a good while between the Britains and Saxons; and in that time it is reasonable to presume that Ambrosius and the Nobles and People did their endeavour towards the recovering the honour of their Churches, as well as of the Kingdom. And after the care he took in other places, saith Geffrey, he marched to London, which had suffered as well as other Cities; and having called the dispersed Citizens together, he went about the repairing of it; all his design being the restoring the Church and Kingdom. From thence he went to Winchester and to Salisbury. And in the passage thither Geffrey launches out to purpose in his History of Stonehenge, translated, saith he, by Merlin out of Ireland, to make a Monument for the British Nobles, slain there by Hengist's Treachery: Which is such an Extravagancy that it is to be wondred any should follow him in it, and yet Matt. (p)(p)Flores, A. D. 490.Westminster transcribes the main of it; and (q)(q)W. Coventry in Praefat.Walter Coventry sets it down for authentick History; But he adds two circumstances which make it seem probable that Stonehenge had some Relation to Ambrosius, viz. That here Ambrosius was Crowned, and was not long after buried; from whom (r)(r)Polyd. Virg. Hist. l. 3.Polydore Virgil makes it the Monument of Ambrosius; and John of Tinmouth in the Life of Dubricius calls it Mons Ambrosii: And the Name of Ambresbury near it doth much confirm the probability, That it had rather a respect to Ambrosius, than either to the Romans or the Danes. But I cannot now insist on this.

(s)(s)Flores Hist. A. D. 488.Matthew Westminster confirms Geffrey's Relation concerning the great Zeal of Ambrosius in repairing the British Churches every where, and setting up Divine Worship in them, and giving great incouragement to the Clergy to perform all Divine Offices, and particularly to pray for the Prosperity of the Church and Kingdom. But Geffrey adds yet farther concerning him, that in a solemn Council of the Britains he appointed two Metropolitans for the two Vacant Sees at that time, viz. Sampson one of eminent piety for York, and Dubricius for Caer-leon. This saith Matt. Westminster was done An. Dom. 490. and he makes them both to live and flourish An. Dom. 507. But he saith, That Sampson was afterwards driven over to Aremorica, and there p. 330was Archbishop of Dole among the Britains. For Anno Dom. 561. he saith, Another Sampson succeeded in that See, the former who came out of Great Britain to the Less. Sigebert of the old Edition, Anno Dom. 566. speaks of Sampson then Archbishop of Dole, Kinsman to Maglorius, who came from the Britain beyond the Sea to that on this side. This second Sampson's Life is extant in the Bibliotheca Floriacensis, where he is said to have been born in Britain, and the Scholar of Iltutus, and consecrated by Dubricius. But (t)(t)Itiner. Camb. l. 2. c. 1.Giraldus Cambrensis saith, The Pall was carried over from Wales to Dole, in the time of another Sampson, who was the 25th. from St. David, and went over because of the Plague which discoloured People like the Iaundice, and therefore called Flava Pestis: Which is transcribed by (u)(u)Hoveden, p. 454.Roger Hoveden. But here are several Mistakes in this Account. For there was no such thing as a Pall then known or used in the Western Church; And if this Sampson went over on the occasion of that Plague, there could not be 25. between St. David and him: For in the Life of St. Teliaus, St. David's Sister's Son, that Plague is described, and then Sampson is said to be Archbishop of Dole, and to have received Teliaus and his Company with great joy, having been School-fellows under Dubricius, and Sampson being consecrated by him. But still we have two Sampsons Archbishops of Dole, and in the time of the great Controversie about that Archbishoprick, (of which afterwards) it was a Question from which the Title was derived. And Innocent III. as Giraldus relates, said it was from this Sampson Archbishop of York: but the Sammarthani onelyonly mention him that came from St. Davids, when Maglorius succeeded among the Aremorican Britains; but we are not yet come to them.

It is observed by H. of (w)(w)Huntingd. l. 2.Huntingdon, that after the Britains had a little respite from their Enemies, they fell into Civil dissensions among themselves, which is very agreeable to what Gildas had said. Of this the (x)(x)Galfr. l. 5. c. 6.British History gives no improbable account, when it relates that one of Vortigern's Sons called Pascentius, raised a Rebellion in the North against Ambrosius among the Britains, who were overcome by him, and put to flight; but afterwards he hired a Saxon to poison p. 331Ambrosius at Winchester. This saith Matthew Westminster happen'd Anno Dom. 497. But we are not to pass over what he affirms of him, Anno Dom. 485. viz. That he commanded in the Battel at Mecredsburn against Aella and his Sons, in which they were so much worsted as to send home for Supplies, as he saith. This Aella and his Sons Cymen, Plenting and Cissa came into Britain, Anno Dom. 477. and landed at a place from his eldest Son called Cymenshore, on the Coasts of Sussex. (y)(y)Brit. p. 223.Camden saith it hath lost its Name; But he proves from a Charter of Cedwalla to the Church of Selsey it must be near Wittering. Here Aella and his Army fought the Britains at his first Landing, and forced them to retire to Andredeswald, say the Saxon Annals, and Matt. Westminster, Florentius and Huntingdon. The Saxon Annals and Huntingdon call it Andredesleage: by that no question is meant the vast Wood which began in Kent, and ran through Sussex into Hampshire, called by the Britains Coid Andred, by the Saxons Andred, and Andreswald; from whence as Mr. Somner observes, that part of Kent where the Wood stood is still called the Weald; and (z)(z)Perambulation of Kent, p. 211.Lambard observes, that no Monuments of Antiquity are to be met with in the Weald either of Kent or Sussex. The Saxons after this Battel continued to inhabit on the Shore, till at last the Britains finding them to incroach farther, resolved to fight them at a place called Mecredsburn. And a different account is given of the Success of this Battel: The Saxon Annals and Ethelwerd onelyonly mention it, boasting of no Victory; Florentius makes it a clear Victory on the Saxon side: Matt. Westminster saith Aella quitted the field, but confesseth the Britains had great loss: H. of Huntingdon saith, It was a drawn Battel, both Armies having sustained great damage and avoiding each other. After this Aella and Cissa, say the Saxon Annals, besieged Andredescester and killed all the Inhabitants, leaving not one Britain alive; and so Florentius and Matt. Westminster relate it. But he (a)(a)Matt. West. A. D. 492.saith, That the Britains came out of the Wood, and galled the Saxons so much, that they were forced to divide their Army; and the Inhabitants perished by Famine as well as by the Sword: And he observes that the Saxons utterly demolished the City, and p. 332the place where it stood was in his time shewed to Travellers. Therefore the question among our Antiquaries, which was the Anderida of the Ancients, Newenden or Hastings or Pemsey is quite out of doors, unless one of these be proved to be built in the place of Anderida since Matt. Westminster's days; which were towards the end of Edw. 3. Those words (b)(b)Brit. p. 247.Camden applies onelyonly to H. of Huntingdon, and he saith it was new built in Edw. 1. his time, and therefore called Newenden; but they are likewise Matt. Westminster's who lived after that time, and therefore it cannot be Newenden if it were rebuilt in the time of Edw. 1. for he saith, The desolate place was shewed in his time; unless one transcribed the other, without any regard to the difference of their own times.

After Ambrosius his death, according to the (c)(c)Galsr. l. 6. c. 2.British History, his Brother Vther Pendragon succeeded, who routed the Saxons in the North, relieved York besieged by them, took the Sons of Hengist Prisoners, marched to London, and there called a Parliament, and was solemnly Crowned, and fell out with Goalois Duke of Cornwall, about his Wife Igerna, and under his shape had King Arthur by her; but her Husband was killed at the Siege of his Castle. After which it is said, that he overcame the Saxons at Verulam, where he was after poisoned by their means, and his Son Arthur succeeded.

This is the summ of what is there more at large related; but taking it all together, it is a very blind and partial account of the proceedings between the Britains and Saxons of that time. For even Matt. Westminster, Anno Dom. 494 takes notice of Cerdic and Kenric his Son, Landing with new Forces at a place called from him Cerdicshore, (near Yarmouth saith (d)(d)Brit. p. 348.Camden where the name Cerdicsand still remains) and fought the Britains at their first Landing, till they were forced to withdraw and leave room for them, who after went into the Western parts, and laid the foundation of the Kingdom of the West Saxons. To the same purpose Florentius, Ethelwerd and Huntingdon. Seven years after him came Port and his two Sons Bleda and Magla, and arrived at Portsmouth, which had its Name from him, as the same Authours inform us from the p. 333Saxon Annals. Now how comes Geffrey to think of none of these, but onelyonly of Hengist's two Sons in the North? Besides, he lets slip one of the greatest Battels that was fought between Cerdic and Nathanleod, and pretends to give no account at all of it. This the Saxon Annals, Florentius, Ethelwerd and Matt. Westminster all place Anno Dom. 508. But Huntingdon the sixtieth year after the first coming of the Saxons. This Nazaleod, as he calls him, was the greatest King of the Britains, one of great Fame and Pride, from whom the Countrey about Charford did take its Name. At this place the whole Forces of the Britains were gathered together, and Cerdic procured assistence from Aesc of Kent, from Aella of Sussex, from Port and his Sons; so that here was a pitched Battel of the Strength of both sides; and Nazaleod behaved himself with so much Courage, that he drove Cerdic out of the Field, and pursued him; which his Son who commanded the other Wing perceiving, followed him close and cut him off, and 5000 of his Men who fled upon the death of their King. And from this memorable Battel, the Place was called Cerdicsford, and since Charford, upon the Aven between Salisbury and Ringwood. But who was this mighty King of the Britains, who lost his Life in this Battel? (e)(e)Brit. p. 187.Mr. Camden professes he cannot ghess; unless it were Aurelius Ambrosius, whose Name he observes the Saxon Annalists never mention, nor the Battels wherein they were worsted. And the British History is even with them for that, which takes no notice of this great Fight, wherein their King was slain. Matt. Westminster will not have him to be King, but onelyonly to be General under Vther, who was then sick, which contradicts Ethelwerd, and Huntingdon, and Florentius, who affirm him to have been then King, and as Huntingdon saith Rex Maximus Britannorum; which seems to imply, that there were more Kings then among the Britains, as there were among the Saxons; and that one was the Chief as in the Heptarchy. Archbishop (f)(f)Prim. p. 466.Vsher thinks this King was the same whom the British History calls Vther, and that Nathanleod was his true Name, and Vther was a Nickname to denote his fierceness, as the Annotatour on p. 334(g)(g)Nenn. c. 63.Nennius calls Arthur Mab Vter in the British Tongue for the same reason: And so Arthurus in Latine from the British Arth, which signifies a Bear. This is an ingenious conjecture: But we are not so sure there ever was such a King as Vther, as we are from Gildas, that there was such a one as Ambrosius; But Gildas saith, That some of the Race of Ambrosius were living in his time; therefore he died not without issue, as the British History supposes, and this might probably be his Son, who was slain in this Battel.

But what then is to be said to King Arthur, who was Son to Vther, and succeeded him, whose mighty Feats are so amply related by the British History? I think both sorts are to blame about him, I mean those who tell Incredible Tales of him, such as are utterly inconsistent with the Circumstances of the British Affairs at that time; and those who deny there was any such Person, or of any considerable power among the Britains. William of Malmsbury takes notice of the British Fables about him, (and if I mistake not makes a severe reflexion upon Geffrey's History without naming it, when he saith, Hic est Arthurus de quo Britonum Nugae bodié que delirant) but he wishes a true Account had been given of him, for he was the support of his Countrey, for a long time, who sharpned the broken Spirits of the Britains, and made them Warlike. But after all, he will not allow him to have been Monarch in Britain, but onelyonly the General under Ambrosius. And in all this William keeps close to Nennius; for Nennius speaking of the Wars between the British Kings and the Saxons, saith of Arthur, Ipse Dux erat Bellorum; although he exceeds the bounds of Truth in the next Words, & in omnibus Bellis Victor extitit, he came off always Conquerour. If this had been true, the Saxons could never have kept footing in England. I will allow the Saxon Annals to be partial in not recounting their Losses; and on the other side it is unreasonable to suppose, that the Saxons should be always beaten, and yet always get ground even in Arthur's days. For after the great Battel wherein Nathanleod was killed, (the onelyonly British King mentioned in the Saxon Annals) Cerdic's two Nephews, Stuff and Witgar, landed p. 335upon Cerdicshore, which (h)(h)Mat. Westm. A. D. 514.Matt. Westminster here places on the Western Coasts (and not on the Eastern as Camden doth, which seems more probable, because they came with supplies to Cerdic their Uncle) but all agree, that as they fought upon their Landing, they had the better of the Britains; Huntingdon saith, It was such a Victory as laid open the Countrey to them; the force of the Britains being scattered, God having cast them off. Where was Arthur at this time? Again, five Years after saith Ethelwerd, Cerdic and Cenric, came the second time to Cerdicsford, and there fought the Britains; the Saxons Annals say nothing of the Victory, but Florentius gives it to the Saxons, and so doth Huntingdon, who saith, the Britains had a terrible blow that day. And as an evidence of the Saxons Conquest, Ethelwerd saith, That year Cerdic began the Kingdom of the West Saxons: From that very day saith Huntingdon, Anno Dom. 519. Here Matt. Westminster is so hard put to it, that taking in King Arthur at Anno Dom. 516. he is forced to leave out this Battel, and to tell Geffrey's Story of King Arthur's beating the Saxons in the North about York and Lincoln, and driving them as far as the Caledonian Wood, and takes no notice of Kerdic's setting up a Kingdom in the West: But the following Year, Anno Dom. 520. he brings Colgrin, Badulph and Cheldric to Totnes with new Forces, with which they besieged Bath; And then Arthur with his Caliborn did incredible execution, for he saith, he killed 840 with his own hands, and so totally routed the Saxons; and not a word of Kerdic or Kenric, whereas Anno Dom. 528. he remembers them again, and tells what a mighty Army they had in the Isle of Wight, which H. Huntingdon calls Witland, and what slaughter they made at Witgaresburgh, which had its Name from Witgar, one of Kerdic's Nephews, to whom he gave the Isle of Wight, and was buried at Witgar saith Huntingdon.

But before this there was another Battel between Kerdic and the Britains at Cerdics Leage; which Huntingdon makes the same with Cerdicsford, in which there was great slaughter on both sides, and in that time, he saith, many Saxons came in out of Germany p. 336into Eastangle and Mercia, but they were not yet formed into Kingdoms; however innumerable Battels were fought in many places by Persons whose Names are not recorded. And now Huntingdon mentions Arthur, as a most valiant General on the British side, who commanded in twelve Battels, in all which he had the better; and so reckons them up in order just as (i)(i)Nenn. c. 64.Nennius had done, whom he transcribes, and when he hath set down the places of the twelve Battels he confesses they were then unknown, but he adds, that there was almost perpetual fighting, in which sometimes one side had the better and sometimes the other; but still the Saxons poured in greater Numbers upon them: And (k)(k)Nenn. c. 65.Nennius saith, They increased here without intermission, and fetched new Kings out of Germany to Rule over them. And then sets down the foundation of the Northern Saxon Kingdom under Ida, c. 66.who govern'd all beyond Humber twelve years, which was branched into two, Deira and Bernicia. This Kingdom began, saith Huntingdon, in the thirteenth year of the Reign of Kenric (who succeeded Kerdic) Anno Dom. 547. and Ida desce…ded from Woden was the first King. Kenric in his eighteenth year, saith the same Authour, fought against the Britains, who came with a powerfull Army to Salisbury, where he dispersed them and made them fly. But this is supposed to have hapned after Arthur's death, which is placed by Matt. Westminster and others Anno Dom. 542.

We must therefore look back to judge of Arthur's prowess. We have already seen several Saxon Kingdoms established, that of Kent, of South-Saxons, of West-Saxons and Saxons in other parts, not yet gather'd into Kingdoms; and besides these, before Kendic had gained the Isle of Wight, H. Huntingdon saith, The Kingdom of East Saxons was founded by Erkinwin, whom Slede succeeded, who married the Daughter of Ermenerick, King of Kent, Sister of Ethelbert, and Mother to Sibert the first Christian King there. Now, if Arthur were a King so powerfull, so irresistible as the British History makes him, how came all these Kingdoms to grow up under him? Why did he not send the Saxons all out of Britain? Nay, how came Cerdic and Kenric p. 337to grow so strong in the Western parts as they did? Cerdic, saith (l)(l)De Gestis Reg. l. 1. c. 2.William of Malmsbury, came hither eight years after the death of Hengist, Anno Dom. 495. He was here 24 years before he set up his Kingdom, and lived in it 16 years. This was in the midst of Arthur's fame and greatness. If it were such as Geffrey describes; would he have suffred such a terrour to the Britains to have been so near him? (m)(m)Polychr. l. 5. c. 6.Ranulphus Higden saith, That Arthur was so tired out with fighting Cerdic (so weary of overcoming) that 26 years after his coming he yielded part of the West to him: And to the same purpose (n)(n)Chronic. l. 2. c. 1.Rudburn speaks. What is the meaning of all this? The plain truth is, they follow'd Geffrey as far as they could, but they found at last they must give away Kerdic's Kingdom to him; and so they had better make it a free Act of King Arthur.

Let us now compare with this, the Account the British History gives of him: which is this in short.

(o)(o)Galsr. l. ….After the death of Vther Pendragon the British Nobility met at Silcester, where the… desired Dubricius to consecrate Arthur…, For the Saxons had conquer'd from Humber to Cathnes. (It seems all was clear on this side Humber). And so he was no sooner Crown'd but away he marches for York, (leaving the Saxons here in quiet possession) where Childeric came with 600 Ships to assist the two Brothers Colgrin and Baldulph (whose Names the Saxon Annals conceal.) Upon this dreadfull conjunction Arthur repairs to London, and calls a Parliament: And they send over to Hoel King of Little-Britain, his Nephew, and who brings 15000 to his assistence at Southampton, (notwithstanding Port and his Sons were so near) then away he marches for Lincoln, and there kills 6000 Saxons, and pursued the rest into Scotland: and there dismissed them home upon promise of Tribute; but they perfidiously returned to Totnes, and so marched to besiege Bath: Where after he had done the execution Matt. Westminster related, the Saxons get upon the Hill, which Arthur by the help of his Caliburn recover'd, killed the two Brothers, and made Childeric fly, whom Cador pursued to the Isle of Thanet, (although the Son of Hengist had all Kent p. 336duplicate page p. 337duplicate page p. 338as his Kingdom.) After this he drives Gillomarus and his Irish home; and determined to root out the Scots and Picts, but upon great submission he spared them. This being done he returns to York, where he rebuilds the Churches, and settles Pyramus Archbishop in the place of Samson, and restores the British Nobility. Next Summer he goes for Ireland, and having subdued that, he sails for Island, (not then inhabited saith (p)(p)Crymog. l. 1. c. 2.Arngrimus Ionas a Learned Native there) but upon notice of his coming, the Kings of Seland and the Orcades yielded themselves. Then he returns home and settles the Nation in a firm peace for twelve years (although the Saxons were every where about them.) After which time, his Name was dreaded abroad, and away he sails for Norway, and there conquer'd Riculfus and the whole Countrey: from thence to Gaul, where he chopt in pieces the Head of Flollos the Governour in single Combat, and disposed the several Provinces … his Servants, and returning home resolved to keep a solemn Court at Caer-leon, (this was well thought upon, for we reade of no Saxons thereabouts) where besides several Kings the three Metropolitans met, of London, York and Caerleon, besides all his Nobility. But to pass over the great Solemnities there, the Emperour Lucius (not to be found elsewhere) sends to demand Tribute on the account of Julius Caesar's Conquest, upon which he makes great preparations to conquer Rome; and leaves Britain to Mordred his Nephew, who rebelled against him, and forced him to return home, when, after he had conquered Lucius, he was marching for Rome: and here Mordred had associated Saxons, Scots and Picts, all against Arthur; but upon his coming the other fled to Winchester, from thence to Cornwall, where near the River Camblan he waited for Arthur's coming, the issue of the Battel was, Mordred was killed, and Arthur mortally wounded, who was carried into the Island of Avalon, and there died and was buried.

This is the British Legend of King Arthur, which hath raised the laughter of some, and the indignation p. 339of others. William of Newburgh was the first who openly and in plain terms charged it with falsity and inconsistency; but against some parts of it he makes trifling objections; as about the Three Archbishops, denying that the Britains had any Archbishops, because the first Pall was given to Augustine the Monk. But this was a piece of Monkish ignorance in him, for there were Metropolitans before, and without Palls from Rome; and Archbishops or Metropolitans did assume the use of Palls to themselves, without asking the Pope's leave; and when he saith Archbishops came so late into the Western Churches, it is true the use of the word did, but the jurisdiction over Provinces was long before, as I have already shew'd.

Upon the reviving of Learning some were so offended at this ridiculous Legend, that they questioned whether ever there were such a Person as Arthur, against whom Leland undertook the defence of King Arthur. But some of his Authours will not be allow'd to bear witness in this cause, being partial followers of Geffrey; such as Alfred of Beverly, Gray the Authour of Scalae-Chronicon, Joh. Burgensis, Joh. Ross, &c. Others do not speak home to the point, such are the Testimonies of Nennius, Malmsbury, Huntingdon, which make him onelyonly General of the British Forces: others are too modern, as Trithemius, Volaterranus, Philippus Bergomas, Nauclerus, Hector Boethius, Pontius Virunnius, &c. Others overthrow the main part of it, as to Arthur's Sovereign Dominion in Britain, as the Chronica Divionensis, which saith, That after several Combats Cerdic had the possession of the West Saxon Kingdom by Arthur's consent: and as parts of this Kingdom he reckons Seven whole Provinces from Surry to Cornwall. But the British History takes no notice of Cerdic, but supposes all under Arthur's command, and his Nephew Mordred's in his absence. If Cerdic had the West Saxon Kingdom, then how comes no notice of him in the Battel at Camblan? how came the fight within his Territories? Again, the Authour of the Life of Gildas cited by him, saith,p. 24. That one Meluas had stollen his Wife Guenhere, and defiled her, and that Arthur a long time besieged him in the Marshes near Glassenbury. Is p. 340this agreeable to the mighty power of King Arthur, to have his Queen detained by force so long by such an inconsiderable Person as Meluas? Especially if it were as Caradoc of Lancarvan there saith,p. 8. She was restored at last, more by the intreaty of Gildas than out of respect to Arthur's Authority. As to Arthur's Seal which he lays so much weight upon, it certainly belonged to the Diploma he gave to the Vniversity of Cambridge, in his time, mentioned by Leland; and the Church of Westminster, p. 12.if they have it still, ought to restore it. But after all Leland hath sufficiently proved, That there was such a Person as King Arthur from the Cair-Arture in Wales, two Mountains so called; And Arthur's Gate in Mongomery; and the abundant Testimony he brings about his Coffin in Lead found in Glassenbury, either in Henry the Second's time, or at least in the beginning of Richard the First, with an Inscription set down often by him, and more exactly by (r)(r)Brit. p. 166.Camden. Where the Letters appear very rude, and the Inscription very plain, and therefore more likely to be true. HIC IACET SEPVLTVS INCLITVS REX ARTVRIVS IN INSVLA AVALONIA.

Where are all the Noble Titles given him in the British History and contained in the Inscription about his Seal? PATRICIVS ARTVRIVS BRITANNIAE, GALLIAE, GERMANIAE, DACIAE, IMPERATOR.

So much greater a Man was Arthur living, when he used this Seal, than dead, when so mean an Inscription was put upon the lower part of his Leaden Coffin! How soon were all his great Titles forgotten!

But since Leland, Sir John (s)(s)Hist. Brit. Desens. p. 109.Price hath undertaken to vindicate the Story of King Arthur: and the first Argument he uses is from the Inscription on his Coffin, p. 341and the Antiquity of the Letters; but the modesty of the Inscription is a better Argument to me, for if the Monks designed a Cheat in Heu. II. his time, and laid this Coffin there on purpose to deceive, they might counterfeit such Letters, but they could never have held from speaking more glorious things of so great a Heroe. Then he produced the Testimonies of Nennius, p. 117.Malmsbury and Huntingdon, and proves that these two could not take out of Geffrey; that they did not I grant, but the other is not proved.p. 120. The Verses of Thaliessin (who he saith lived in the time of Maglocunus mentioned by Gildas) do prove That Arthur commanded in the Battel at Badon Hill, which I see no reason to question; but Polydore Virgil will have Aurelius Ambrosius to doe it, which I see no reason to believe. Besides, he quotes old British Chronicles, p. 121.which reckon from Vortigern to the Battel on Badon Hill, wherein Arthur beat the Saxons, 128 years; from that Battel to the Battel at Camblan wherein Arthur was killed, 22 years And he finds the Name of Arthur in many ancient British Poems; and in the old Register of Landaff:p. 125. But that onelyonly proves, there was one Arthur, whose Son's Name was Noe; but what is more material, he finds some passages agreeing with Geffrey in the old Chronicles of St. Davids and Caer-Mardin, p. 128.as to his fighting against Lucius Hiberus in Burgundy, and the Battel at Camblan; but it doth not appear, that these Chronicles were before Geffrey's time.p. 129. As to King Arthur's Crown and Seal, they may go together. But as to Gildas his silence, from whence some would prove that there was no such Person, he answers from Giraldus, that Arthur having killed his Brother Hoel,p. 141. he purposely left him out, which is no clear Answer; For if Gildas did this in revenge, he would rather have mentioned his Cruelty, as we see he spares not the Kings of his own time. But his better Answer is, That Gildas design'd no History, but a serious exhortation to the Britains to repent of their Sins, and therefore passes over other things; onelyonly by the by mentioning Ambrosius Aurelianus, and addresses himself to his main business; which is reason enough why he never names King Arthur.

p. 342Joh. (t)(t)Scotich. l. 4. c. 25.Fordon follows Geffrey, as far as he thinks consistent with the honour of his Countrey. This appears in the Story of King Arthur; for he saith, he was set up by a Faction against the lawfull Heirs, who were Mordred and Walwan, the Sons of, Uther's Daughter by Loth, then a great Man in Scotland; but descended from Fulgentius; but he after excuses it, on the account of necessity; which Dubricius alledged, they being then under age so much, as not to be able to go into the Field. But he justifies Mordred's Rebellion afterwards against Arthur on this ground, that he had the right. Title to the Crown. (u)(u)Hist. Scot. l. 9. p. 164.Hector Boethius saith, That Lothius put in his claim, according to the ancient Law of the Britains, and that he ought to have the Regency during the Minority of his Sons; But the Britains would by no means hear of Strangers coming to their Crown; and so Arthur took possession of it; who first conquer'd the Saxons 10 Miles from London, then took London (which it seems the Saxons had before) and so went towards Humber; and then he goes on with the British History, onelyonly interspersing some News of his own. Particularly he tells what a profane Christmas Arthur kept with his Nobles at York for thirteen days together; And that such Iollity and Feasting then had its original from him. (w)(w)Buch. l. 5. p. 44.Buchanan is so pleased with this notable observation, that he sets it down for good History; saying upon it, that the old Saturnalia were renewed, onelyonly the Days increased, and Saturn's Name changed to Caesar's, for, saith he, we call that Feast Julia. But why should the Name of Saturn be changed into Caesar's? Was he worshipped for a God among the British Christians, as Saturn was among the Old Pagans? But the Name Julia imports it: by no means. For Buchanan doth not prove that this Name was ever used for that Festival among the Britains; And the Saxons who brought in both the Feast and the Name give another reason for it. For (x)(x)De ratione Temp. c. 13.Bede saith, That December was called Giuli from the conversion of the Sun and the increase of the days. And Giul, as (y)(y)Antiq. Suec. Goth. l. 1. c. 5.Loccenius observes, signified a Wheel, or any thing that turns round, in the Gothick Language. At which time among the Northern Nations, the Feast of the New Year was observed p. 343with more than ordinary jollity; thence as (z)(z)Fasti Danici. l. 1. c. 12.Olaus Wormius and (a)(a)Upsal. c. 16.Scheffer observe they reckon'd their Age by so many Iôla's, and Snorro Sturleson describes this New-years Feast, just as Buchanan sets out the British Saturnalia, by feasting and sending Presents or New-years Gifts to one another: Thence some think the Name of this Feast was taken from Iôla, which in the Gothick Language signifies to make merry. But (b)(b)Atlantic. c. 5. p. 125.Olaus Rudbeck thinks the former more proper, not onelyonly from Bede's Authority, but because in the old Runick Fasti a Wheel was used to denote that Festival: And as he observes, this Festival continued twelve days from their first of the Juul. The true reason whereof was, as Olaus Rudbeck at large proves;p. 100. from the Joy they had at the hopes of the return of the Sun; at which time they made Solemn Sacrifices to the Sun. But after Christianity prevailed, all their Idolatrous Sacrifices were laid aside, and this time of Feasting was joined with the Religious Solemnities of that Season, which in other parts of the World were observed by Christians. Which is certainly a very different thing from the Roman Saturnalia, although Buchanan thought fit to parallel them.

But to proceed with the Story of King Arthur, as it is in Buchanan, who takes his Materials from Hector, and puts them into a finer dress. Arthur, he saith, made a League with the Scots and Picts, and Lothus brought his Sons to him: And then a resolution was taken to drive out the Saxons, and to restore Christianity; Then follow'd the Battel against Colgrin; of which before: And the rest of Arthur's Battels: But upon the whole, he concludes that Geffrey's Relations have no colour of Truth; and yet he makes use of no other, but where he follows Hector's own inventions. The remainder of his Story is, That things being quieted here, Arthur goes over into Lesser Britain, and leaves the Government to his Nephew Mordred; But while he was abroad, some had prevailed with him to declare Constantine the Son of Cador his Successour being born in Britain; which being done, Mordred set up for himself, and in a Battel about Humber, saith he, Mordred was killed, and Arthur mortally wounded. Thus Buchanan having p. 344picked what he thought fit out of Hector, concludes with a bitter Invective against the fabulous Relations about Arthur; But he gives him an extraordinary Character, saying, he was certainly a great Man, of mighty Courage and wonderfull kindness to his Countrey, preserving them from Slavery, and keeping up or restoring the true Religion.

And that is the Subject I am now to consider, viz. The State of Religion here in King Arthur's days. It was under great Persecution almost whereever the Saxons came, who were cruel both to the Bodies and Souls of the poor Britains: Most of the Southern and Western parts were under their Tyranny; and (c)(c)Antiq. Oxon. Acad. Apol. l. 1. § 87.Brian Twyne quotes a passage out of Matt. Westminster, which is not so full in the printed Copies, concerning the Persecution of the British Christians in the Eastern parts of the Land. For, saith he, Anno Dom. 527. The Pagans came out of Germany, and took possession of the Countrey of the East-Angles, & omni crudelitatis genere Christianos affecerunt, They tormented the Christians with all sorts of Cruelty. Although this be wanting in other Copies, yet it may be reasonably presumed, The Saxons using the British Christians in such a manner in the most places where they prevailed. It is true that (d)(d)De Gest. Reg. l. 1. c. 2.Malmsbury saith, many of the Britains submitted to Cerdic, and it is probable they were the better used for doing so. Tho. (e)(e)Chron. l. 2. c. 1.Rudburn saith, That Cerdic allow'd Liberty of professing the Christian Religion to the Cornish upon a certain Tribute. I rather think that Cerdic never went so far, but left that part to the Britains, who still continued there: For in Gildas his time Constantine is said to be King of the Danmonii: and (f)(f)Brit. p. 141.Camden observes out of Marianus Scotus, that Anno Dom. 820. the Britains and Saxons had a terrible Fight at Camelford in Cornwall, which Leland thinks to have been Camlan, where King Arthur fought with Mordred, and near which is a Stone, saith Mr. (g)(g)Survey of Cornw. p. 122.Carew, which bears Arthur's Name; but now called Atry. To prove what I have said, that the West-Saxon Kingdom did not extend to Cornwall, we may observe that (h)(h)De Gest. Reg. l. 1. c. 2.William of Malmsbury saith, That Ceaulin, Granchild to Cerdic, was the first who took Gloucester, Cicester p. 345and Bath from the Britains, and drove them thence into the Rocky and Woody places: And in the time of Athelstan, above 400 years after the coming of the Saxons; the Cornish Britains did inhabit in Exceter, l. 2. c. 6.and were driven thence by him beyond the River Tamar, and confined by that, as the other Britains were by the Wye. This shews that the Britains in Cornwall, and thereabouts, were free from the Yoke of the West-Saxon Kingdom. As to the Northern Britains, l. 1. c. 3.they came to some agreement after a while with Oeca and Ebusa, whom Hengist sent thither; and that they had their own Government, and the Christian Religion among them appears by the History of Ceadwalla, a Prince of these Britains in (i)(i)l. 2. c. 20.Bede. But these were but small remnants in the Northern and Western parts. As to the Eastern, we have had the Testimony of Matt. Westminster already. And although the Kingdom of the East-Angles did not begin till afterwards, about Anno Dom. 575. yet in the ninth year of Cerdic, about Anno Dom. 517. Huntingdon observes, That many Angles or Saxons were come out of Germany, and took possession of the Countrey of the East-Angles and Mercia, and whereever they prevailed, the poor British Christians suffered to the highest extremity. Which is enough to considering Men to overthrow the credit of the supposed Diploma of King Arthur to the Vniversity of Cambridge, which bears date Anno Dom. 531. But Brian Twyne hath brought no fewer than 15 Arguments against it, which are far more than needed. For I cannot think that Dr. Cajus in earnest believed it, for he goes not about to prove the Diploma, but King Arthur; And I cannot think it any honour or service to so famous and ancient an Vniversity, to produce any such sespected Diplomata or Monkish Legends to prove its Antiquity. It is not certain in whose possession London was at that time, from whence the Charter is dated: For the Kingdom of the East-Saxons was then set up by Erkinwin, and London commonly was under that, and that Kingdom as (k)(k)De Gesti… Reg. l. 1. c. 6.Malmsbury observes, had the same limits which the Diocese of London now hath, viz. Essex, Middlesex, and part of Hartfordshire: (l)(l)Matt. West. A. D. 586.Matt. Westminster agrees, that Middlesex was under the Kingdom of the East-Saxons, p. 346but he will not yield that Theonus Bishop of London did retire with his Clergy into Wales till Anno Dom. 586. and then he confesses that he and Thadioc, Bishop of York, when they saw all their Churches demolished, or turned into Idol Temples, did for their security retire thither.

And there was the freest Exercise of their Religion kept up, even in the Reign of King Arthur; There flourished the Schools of Literature set up by Dubricius and Iltutus, and there were the Persons of greatest Reputation for Learning and Sanctity in the British Churches, such as Dubricius, Iltutus, Paulinus, Gundleus, Cadocus, Sampson, Paternus, Daniel, and St. David above the rest, whose Reputation continues to this day, and was preserved in the Saxon Churches of Britain, as appears by the Breviary of Salisbury, where nine Lessons are appointed upon his day; And (m)(m)Trophea Congr. Bened. To. 1. p. 263.Maihew observes that this was by a Provincial Constitution in the Province of Canterbury; But the nine Lessons were taken out of the first Chapter of the Legend of his Life, a little being added at the end concerning his Death. It is the just complaint of (n)(n)Acta Sanct. Mart. 1. § 1. n. 5.Bollandus, that there is nothing extant concerning him, which was written near his own time; and what is extant hath many fabulous mixtures, so that it is hard to find out the Truth. The oldest MS. of his Life he saith is that of Vtretcht, which he hath published; the next he accounts is that in Colganus, which he would have thought to be the Life written by Ricemarchus, quoted by Archbishop (o)(o)Prim. p. 843, 844.Vsher; whom he supposes to have lived before Giraldus Cambrensis, who transcribed much out of him. But Colganus withall intimates, That the Life was taken out of an old Book, wherein Augustin Macraidin, the Authour of the Annals of Ulster had written many things, and probably might write that too; and to confirm this Bollandus observes, onelyonly a little difference in Style between this and the Vtretcht MS. But if we add to these, Giraldus his Life, with that of John of Tinmouth, or Capgrave, we shall after all find, the Life of St. David, not much clearer than that of his Nephew Arthur, for he is supposed to have been Uncle to him by the Mother's side, whose Name is said to be p. 347Nonnita in Capgrave; Nonna in the Utrecht MS. Nemata in Colganus, Melari in the Life of St. Kenna; so Colganus and Bollandus say; But in Capgrave I find Melari said to be the Mother to the Father of St. David, i. e. to Xantus King of the Provincia Ceretica, i. e. Cardiganshire (so called from Ceretus Father to Xanctus say some; from Caraticus, who ruled here, as (p)(p)Brit. p. 518.Camden seems inclinable to believe) That Melari was one of the 12 Daughters of Braghanus King of Brecknock; from whom, (q)(q)Itiner. Camb. l. 1. c. 2.Giraldus saith, the County took its Name; And he said from the British Histories that he had 24 Daughters; but Capgrave saith he had 12 Sons and 12 Daughters. D. Powell in his Notes on Giraldus saith, this Brachanus his Father was Haulaphus, King of Ireland, and his Mother a Britain, viz. Marcella Daughter to Theodoric Son of Tethwaltus King of Garthmathrin afterwards called Brecknock; Another Daughter of Brachanus, he saith, was Wife to Congenus Son to Cadel, King of Powisland, and Mother of Brochmiel, who killed Etheldred King of Northumberland, and routed his Army about Anno Dom. 603. By this we see what a Number of Petty Princes there was about that time among the Britains; but whether St. David were Vncle by the Mother to King Arthur or not, we have not light enough to discover. I shall pass over all the Legendary parts of his Life; and consider onelyonly what relates to the Church-History of those times. His Domestick Education is said to have been under Pauleus or Paulinus a Disciple of St. German; with whom he continued ten years; in the Isle of Wight, saith Giraldus, but it seems more probable to have been Whiteland in Caermardenshire; the School of Iltutus being not far off in Glamorganshire at Lantwitt, i. e. Fanum Iltuti; and in his Life it is said, that he came to the King of Glamorgan; and after, that Sampson, Paulinus, Gildas and David were his Scholars. But Bollandus shews, that there must be a mistake as to David; and that instead of him it should be read Daniel, who was a Disciple of Iltutus, and consecrated first Bishop of Bangor by Dubricius. After this it is said, that David and Eliud, or Teliaus, and Paternus went to Jerusalem, and David was there consecrated Bishop by the Patriarch. And p. 348it is not to be wondred, that in such a distracted time at home, they should go to Jerusalem, when (r)(r)Epist. 17.Saint Jerome in his time mentions the Britains going thither; especially such as were more inclined to Devotion; which humour spread so much, that Gregory Nyssen wrote against it, as a thing very much tending to Superstition if not arising from it. But it was most excusable in such a troublesome time at home. Not long after his return, the famous Synod at Brevy was held at a place called Lhandewy-brevy, the Church of Saint David at Brevy. Here the Vtrecht MS. saith, was a Synod assembled of all the Bishops of Britain upon the account of the Pelagian Controversie then revived. Giraldus saith, It was a general Convention of Clergy and Laity. But the former MS. saith, there were present 118. Bishops, besides Abbats and others. One would think it hard to find so many Bishops in Britain at that time: And Bollandus startles at it, but Colganus undertakes to defend it; having premised that Giraldus and Capgrave leave it out; But he saith, there were more Bishops at that time than afterwards; and more Bishops than Bishopricks, Dioceses not being then so limitted as afterwards; And every Monastery almost having a Bishop its Superiour; By which means he justifies Saint Patrick's consecrating, as Jocelin saith, 350 Bishops with his own hands. But after all this, Giraldus did much better to omit such a number in such a time, unless there were better Testimony concerning it. However there was a considerable number there present, yet St. David was absent, and first Paulinus was sent to him, but he prevailed not, then Daniel and Dubricius went, upon whose intreaty he came, and by his Authority and Eloquence put an effectual stop to Pelagianism: And before the end of the Synod it is said, That by general Consent he was chosen Archbishop of Caerleon, Dubricius desiring to retire on the account of his Age.

But here we meet with a considerable difficulty concerning the Succession to Dubricius, viz. That Teliaus is said to succeed Dubricius at Landaff, and to have power over all the Churches of the Western parts of Britain; How can this be consistent with St. David's succeeding Dubricius in the See of Caerleon, which p. 349had the Metropolitan Power over those Churches?

(s)(s)De Praeful. p. 618.Bishop Godwin out of Bale, and as he supposeth, out of Leland saith, That St. Dubricius was first Bishop of Landaff being there consecrated by Germanus and Lupus, and that afterwards he was removed by a Synod to Caerleon, and Teliaus placed in Landaff. But this by no means clears the difficulty; for although Bale doth there exactly follow Leland, yet Leland himself did not seem to have consulted the Book of Landaff; Where it is said, That when Dubricius was made Archbishop, he had the See of Landaff conferr'd upon him, by the Gift of Mouricus then King, and the three Estates, i. e. the Nobles, Clergy and People, and all the Land between the Taff and Elei: And (t)(t)Collect. Vol. 2. p. 42.Leland himself out of another Authour saith, That when Dubricius was made Archbishop, Landaff was made his Cathedral Church. After Dubricius his time Teliaus is said to be Archbishop several times in the Book of Landaff; and after him Oudoceus is called Summus Episcopus; and the Bishop of Landaff in … Sermon to Calixtus 2. Anno Dom. 1109. saith, That it appears by the hand writing of St. Teliaus, That the Church of Landaff was superiour in dignity to all other Churches in Wales. That which seems to me the most probable account of this matter is, That when Landaff was given to Dubricius then Archbishop, he fixed his See there, and so Landaff was the Seat of the Archbishop of Caerleon. But afterwards when St. David removed the Archiepiscopal See to Menevia, a remote, barren and inconvenient place, as Giraldus himself confesseth; The Bishops of Landaff assumed the Archiepiscopal Power, which had been in that See, and would not submit to the Bishops of St. Davids. This is apparent from that passage of Oùdocëus (who succeeded Theliaus) in the Book of Landaff, that he would not receive Consecration from the Bishop of St. Davids, as his Metropolitan, but had it from the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is a very improbable thing at that time considering the hatred the Britains did bear to the Saxons, and their Bishops to Augustin the Monk: It is far more likely that they received it from the Archbishop of Dole in Britany; or from the Archbishop of London then resident in those parts; who probably kept up their Succession for some time, as long as there were any hopes of returning to their own See, as is before observed.

After this Giraldus speaks of another great Council p. 350held by St. David, which he calls Victoria; in which he saith all the Clergy of Wales were present; And the Decrees of the former Council were confirmed, and new Canons made for the Government of the British Churches; But this Second Synod is not mentioned in the old Vtrecht MS. nor in Capgrave, but it is in Colganus, and by the Expressions it appears to have been taken out of Giraldus, who confesseth, that no Copies of those Canons were to be seen in his time, that Coast being so often visited by Pirats, (who no doubt came to steal MSS. and especially Church-Canons.) I will not deny that the British Churches at that time, and in those parts might be said to be in a flourishing condition in comparison with other parts of Britain, and there might be more Christians there, because they had been driven out from other places; and their Brethrens afflictions might encrease their Devotion; But Gildas takes no more Notice of St. David than he doth of King Arthur. The Battel at Badon-hill according to Archbishop Vsher, was the year after the Synod at Brevy, and from that time the British Churches had some quiet from their Enemies: But then uuGild. § 26.Gildas saith, The Britains quarrelled among themselves; but yet so as that some kind of Order and Government was then kept up among them, by the Remembrance of their late Calamities. And at this time he speaks the best of the Britains, that he doth in his whole Book; for he saith, That Kings and Publick and Private Persons, Bishops and other Churchmen (for Sacerdotes in that Age often signified Bishops, and Gildas calls it Sacerdotalem Episcopatus Sedem) did all keep to the Duty of their places. But then he adds, when the Sense of these Calamities was worn out, and a new Generation arose, they fell into such a degeneracy as to cast off all the Reins of Truth and Iustice, that no remainder of it appear'd in any sort of Men, except a few, a very few, whose number was so small in comparison with the rest, that the Church could hardly discern its genuine Children when they lay in her Bosome.

But before I come to this last and saddest part of the History of the British Churches it will be necessary now to give some Account of those Britains, who being wearied out here went for Refuge to that Countrey in France, which from them is called Bretagn.

p. 351It seems hard to determine when the first Colony of Britains was setled in the parts of Aremorica. For in the declining times of the Roman Empire, there was so frequent occasion of the British Souldiers removing into the Continent, and so little encouragement to return hither, that it is not improbable, that after the Troubles of Maximus and Constantine a Colony of Britains might settle themselves upon the Sea Coasts near to Britain, where they might be ready to receive or to go over to their Countrymen; as the Condition of affairs should happen. This I am very much induced to believe, not from the Authority of Nennius, or Geffrey, or William of Malmsbury, or Radulphus Niger, &c. but from these Arguments;

First from Sidonius Apollinaris; and there are two passages in him which tend to the clearing this matter, the first is concerning Aruandus accused at Rome of Treason, in the time of Anthemius, for persuading the King of the Goths to make War upon the Greek Emperour, i. e. Anthemius, who came out of Greece, and upon the Britains on the Loir, as wwEpist. l. 1. Ep. 7.Sidonius Apollinaris expresly affirms, who lived at that time, and pitied his case. This hapned about Anno Dom. 467. before Anthemius was the second time Consul. From whence it appears, not onelyonly that there were Britains then settled on the Loir, but that their Strength and Forces were considerable, which cannot be supposed to consist of such miserable People as fled from hence for fear of the Saxons: And it is observable, that about this time Ambrosius had success against the Saxons, and by Vortimer's means, or his, the Britains were in great likelihood of driving them out of Britain; so that there is no probability that the Warlike Britains should at that time leave their Native Countrey. A second passage is concerning Riothamus, a King of the Britains in the time of xxL. 3. Ep. 9.Sidonius Apollinaris, and to whom he wrote, who went with 12000 Britains to assist the Romans against Euricus King of the Goths, but were intercepted by him, as yyDe Rebus Get. c. 45.Jornandes relates the Story, and Sigebert places it Anno Dom. 470. Now what clearer Evidence can be desired than this, to prove that a considerable Number of Britains were there settled, and p. 352in a condition not onelyonly to defend themselves, but to assist the Romans; which cannot be imagined of such as merely fled thither after the Saxons coming into Britain. Besides we find in Sirmondus his Gallican Councils, Mansuetus a Bishop of the Britains subscribing to the first Council at Tours, which was held Anno Dom. 461. By which we see the Britains had so full a settlement then, as not onelyonly to have Habitations, but a King and Bishops of their own; which was the great incouragement for other Britains to go over, when they found themselves so hard pressed by the Saxons at home. For a People frighted from hence, would hardly have ventured into a foreign Countrey, unless they had been secure before hand of a kind reception there. If they must have fought for a dwelling there, had they not far better have done it in their own Countrey? From whence I conclude, that there was a large Colony of Britains in Aremorica before those Numbers went over upon the Saxon Cruelties; of which zzAnnal. A. D. 786. Hist. Francic. Script. coat. To. 2. p. 639.Eginhardus and other foreign Historians speak. Archbishop Vsher seems to think this Riothamus himself to have been the first Leader of them; But it is hard to think a Person of his Valour and Experience would leave his Countrey in that distressed Condition it was brought into by the Saxons.

But aaSur. Dec. 13.Florentius the Authour of the Life of Judocus Son to a King of Bretagn saith, That his Name was Rioval, a Prince here in Britain, who gathered a good Army and Fleet together, and with that subdued the People who lived on the Aremorican Coasts, being then left destitute and unable to defend themselves. For that was the effect of the Roman Government, which was kept up by the force of the Roman Legions in all parts of it, and so when these were broken, the Nations were so unaccustomed to War, that they lay open to all Invaders. So that the Aggressors did generally succeed in their attempts where the Roman Legions were withdrawn: and next to the wise Providence of God which ordereth all things, there was no one cause which contributed so much to the miseries of those times, and the strange Revolutions which hapned in them, as the Natives being not trained up to Martial Discipline, p. 353but depending wholly on the Roman Legions for their Defence and security; thence, whatever People had the Courage to invade, did usually take possession of the Countrey where the Roman Legions were at a distance, or otherwise engaged against each other. Thus in France, the Goths, the Burgundians, the Franks, and the Britains took possession of the several parts they attempted; and the Goths and Vandals in Spain: So Goths and Lombards in Italy it self. So that it is not to be wondred, if the Saxons prevailed here at last; but with as much difficulty, and after as many Battels, as were fought by any People of that time without foreign Assistence. But to return to the Aremorican Britains, whether they came over under Rioval in the beginning of the distractions here, when the People were so Rebellious against their Princes, as Gildas relates, or whether they went over to assist Constantine and his Son, and so remained there, I shall not determin. But that the Britains were well settled there before Sampson Archbishop of York and his Company passed the Seas, appears by what bbA. D. 1199.Mat. Paris saith, That they went to their fellow Citizens and Countrey Men, hoping to live more quietly there. And after the death of the Bishop of Dole, he was by the consent of the Britains put into his Place, and from thence forwards exercised his Archiepiscopal power there; the Kings of that Province, not suffering his Successours there to pay any Obedience to the Archbishop of Tours. Which begot a Suit which held 300 years in the Court of Rome, and was this year manfully decided by Innocent III. as Mat. Paris there relates: Who states the Case very unskilfully, laying the weight of it upon the Archbishop's bringing over his Pall from York, which the Pope had given him there. Suppose this were true (although the Popes gave no Palls then, nor a great while after) yet this were no reason to contest it in the Court of Rome so long together. But the difficulty of the Case lay upon another point, viz. according to the Old Canon of the Church, If a Province were divided into two, each Province was to have a Metropolitan; Now this Reason held much stronger when new Kingdoms were erected out of the Roman Provinces: For what Reason p. 354was there why the Bishop of Dole in the Kingdom of Bretagn should yield subjection to the Bishop of Tours in a distinct Kingdom? and there was the fairer Colour for this when one actually an Archbishop before came to be settled there; and from hence they insisted on a Prescription of a very long time, wherein no Subjection had been made to the Bishop of Tours, as appears by the account given of this Cause by (c)(c)Epist. l. 2. F…. 82.Innocent III. in his Epistles lately published by Baluzius. On the other side it was pleaded, that all Britanny was under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tours, but that the Britains conspiring against the King of France, and setting up a Kingdom of their own, they made use of Sampson, Archbishop of York, coming to establish a Metropolitan power within that Kingdom: and upon Complaint made to Rome, the Popes had put it upon this issue, whether any of their Predecessors had granted the Pall to the Bishop of Dole, which not being proved, the Pope, as it was easie to imagine, gave Sentence against the Bishop of Dole. But it is certain, that they went upon a false suggestion, viz. That the Kingdom of Bretagn was set up in Rebellion to the Kingdom of France. For Childeric had not extended his Dominions in France as far as the Loir: and before his time, the Britains were in quiet possession of those parts of Aremorica; and the best (d)(d)Mezeray, To. 1. p. 18.French Historians now grant that the Britains came thither in the time of Merovée, who obtained but little in Gaul, as (e)(e)Rer. Fran. l. 3. p. 146.Hadrianus Valesius confesseth. And the (f)(f)Vit. Gild. c. 12.Authour of the Life of Gildas observes, That the Power of the Kings of France was very inconsiderable in the time of Childeric, Son of Merovée, at what time Gildas went over into Aremorica, as his School-fellows under Iltutus, Sampson and Paulus had done before him; whereof one succeeded the other Sampson at Dole, and the other was made Bishop of the Oxismii, the most Northern People of Bretagn; which Diocese is since divided into Three, Treguier, S. Pol de Leon, and S. Brieu.

Here Gildas at the request of his Brethren who came out of Britain, saith the Authour of his Life, wrote his Epistle, wherein he so sharply reproves the several Vices of the five Kings of Britain▪ whom he calls p. 355by the Names of Constantine, Aurelius, Vortiporius, Cuneglasus and Maglocunus; and speaks to them all as then living. The (g)(g)Galfr. l. 8.British History makes them to succeed each other; Constantine, according to that, was killed in his third year by Aurelius Conanus. He died in his second year, and Vortiporius succeeding him Reigned four years. After him he places Malgo, and leaves Cuneglasus wholly out. But that they Reigned at the same time in several parts of Britain is evident from Gildas, because he saith, He knew that Constantine was then living; Now Constantine Reigning the first of these, how could he speak to the four Kings that succeeded him, if he were still living? For there is no colour, for imagining that Gildas still added his Reproof as one died and another succeeded; for any one may discern it was written in one continued style, and he writes to them all as then living without the least intimation that they succeeded each other: Besides, he calls Constantine the Issue of the impure Damnonian Lioness; and at this time the Britains in the remote Western parts were separated from the other by the West Saxon Kingdom; and therefore there is far less Probability that all the Britains at that time should be under one Monarch. And where they had greatest freedom of living together, they were divided into several Principalities. For he, whom Gildas calls Maglocunus, is by the British Writers called Maelgun Guineth, and Mailgunus mentioned by John of Tinmouth, in the Life of St. Paternus, and by Thaliessin in Sir John Price, from whom it appears that he was King of North-Wales. And as Gildas calls Vortiporius the Tyrant of the Demetae, by whom the Inhabitants of South-Wales are understood: Aurelius Conanus, Archbishop (h)(h)Prim. p. 537.Vsher thinks was King of Powisland; which was sometime a third Kingdom. And for Cuneglasus, it seems probable, he had the Command of the Northern Britains; for it is plain from Bede they had a distinct Principality there. All these Gildas doth very severely reprove for their several Vices; and then taxes the Judges and Clergy to the Conclusion of his Epistle, to the end they might repent of their Sins, and acquit the just and wise Providence of God in the judgments he brought p. 356upon them, which were very terrible, and ended in the desolation of the Countrey and the ruine of the British Churches, excepting onelyonly those Remnants which were confined to the Corners of the Land. For our (i)(i)Ranulph. Nig. in Chronic. Matt. Westmin. A. D. 586, 596.Historians say, That the Saxons left not the Face of Christianity whereever they did prevail.

This is a very sad Subject, which ought not to be passed over without that Reflexion which St. (k)(k)Rom. 11.22.Rom 11:22Paul made on the Church of the Jews and Gentiles.

Behold the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell severity, but towards thee goodness; if thou continue in his goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

It remains onelyonly, that we consider the Liberty or Independency of the British Churches; of which we can have no greater Proof than from the Carriage of the British Bishops towards Augustin the Monk, when he came with full power from the Pope to require Subjection from them. And this material point relating to the British Churches I shall endeavour to clear from all the Objections which have been made against it. In order thereto, we are to understand, That (l)(l)Bed. l. 1. c. 27.Augustin the Monk by virtue of the Pope's Authority, did challenge a Superiority over the Bishops of the British Churches, which appears not onelyonly by Gregory's Answer to his Interrogations, c. 29.but by the Scheme of the Ecclesiastical Government here, which Gregory sent to him, after he had a fair prospect of the Conversion of the Saxons, which was at the same time that he sent Mellitus, Justus, Paulinus and Rufinianus, with the Archiepiscopal Pall to him. There he declares that there were to be two Archbishops Sees, one at London (which out of honour to Ethelbert or Augustin was fixed at Canterbury, or rather by Ethelbert's own Authority) and the other at York, which had been a Metropolitan See in the British times, and both these Archbishops were to have twelve Suffragan Bishops under them. The Bishop of London was to be consecrated by his own Synod, and to receive the Pall from the Pope; But Augustin was to appoint the first Bishop of York, who was to yield Subjection to him for his time, but afterwards the Sees were to be Independent on each other. But by all this, it should seem, that he had Authority given him onelyonly over those p. 357Bishops who were consecrated by him, And the Archbishop of York; what then becomes of those Bishops in Britain who were Consecrated by neither, and such they knew there were? Concerning these Gregory gives a plain Answer, That they were all to be subject to the Authority of Augustine; and to govern themselves in Life and Doctrine and Church Offices according to his Direction. Augustine being furnished with such full Powers, as he thought, desires a Meeting with the British Bishops, at a place called Augustinsac, as (m)(m)L. 2. c. 2.Bede saith, in the Confines of the Wiccii and the West Saxons. Where this place was is very uncertain, and not at all material; Camden could find nothing like it, and the Conjectures of others since have no great probability, either as to Austric, or Haustake, or Ossuntree, but at this place, the British Bishops gave Augustine a Meeting; where the first thing proposed by him was, That they would embrace the Vnity of the Catholick Church, and then join with them in Preaching to the Gentiles, for, saith he, they did many things repugnant to the Vnity of the Church; Which was in plain terms to charge them with Schism; and the Terms of Communion offer'd, did imply Submission to the Church of Rome, and by consequence to his Authority over them. But the utmost that could be obtained from them, was onelyonly that they would take farther advice, and give another Meeting, with a greater Number. And then were present Seven Bishops of the Britains, and many Learned Men, chiefly of the Monastery of Banchor, where Dinoth was then Abbat; And the Result of this Meeting was, That they utterly refused Submission to the Church of Rome, or to Augustine as Archbishop over them. And for the Account of this, we are beholding to Bede, whose Authority is liable to no exception in this matter.

But against this plain Matter of Fact, there have been three Objections made which must be removed.

1. That Augustine did not require Subjection from the British Bishops, but onelyonly treated with them, about other matters in difference between them.

2. That their refusing Subjection to the Bishop of Rome depends upon the Credit of a Spurious British MS. p. 358lately invented and brought into light, as the Answer of Dinoth.

(3.) That if they did refuse Subjection to the Pope, it was Schismatical Obstinacy in them, and contrary to the former Sense of the British Church.

To all these I shall give a clear and full Answer.

(1.) As to the matter of their Conference, it cannot be denied that other things were started; as about the Paschal Controversie and some Rites of Baptism, &c. but this was the main point; which Augustine did not in plain Terms insist upon, because it would look too invidiously to require Subjection to himself, but he cunningly insinuates it under the Name of Ecclesiastical Vnity. For I dare appeal to any Man's common sense, whether upon the Principles of the Church of Rome, the British Bishops complying in other things and rejecting the Pope's Authority would have been thought sufficient? If so, then Submission to the Pope is no necessary term of Communion; and Men may be in a very safe Condition without it. But if it were necessary, then Augustine must imply it within the terms of Catholick Peace and Ecclesiastical Vnity. It is therefore ridiculous in (n)(n)Annal. Eccles. A. D. 604. n. 11.Alford and (o)(o)Church. Hist. l. 13. ch. 19. n. 6.Cressy, and such Writers to say, That Augustine did not insist upon it: For it is to charge him with Ignorance or Stupidity, that he should leave out so necessary an Article of Communion: And yet Gregory had so great an opinion of him, as to make him the Directour of the British Churches. And therefore it cannot be supposed that he should offer terms of Communion without requiring Submission to the Pope's Authority; if those were in a state of Schism who denied it.

But it is said, That in the Conclusion of the second Meeting, Augustine did not insist upon, nor so much as mention any subjection to him from the British Churches, but onelyonly required Compliance in three Points, viz. the time of the Paschal Solemnity agreeable with the Church of Rome; following the Roman Customes in Baptism; and joining with them in Preaching to the Saxons; and upon these they brake up the Meeting.

p. 359To which I Answer.

That these things were required by Augustin, not as Conditions of Brotherly Communion, but as the Marks of Subjection to his Authority; which appears from Bede's own Words, Si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis, &c. Which Cressy very unfaithfully renders, If they would conform in three points onelyonly: Whereas the meaning is, If they would own his Authority in those three things; and therefore the British Bishops answered very appositely, when they said, we will neither doe the things nor submit to you as Archbishop over us. Why should they deny Subjection if it had not been required of them? Which shews they very well understood his meaning, and gave Answer in short, to the main point. And upon this Account I suppose it was, that, the Anchoret's advice was followed about observing Whether he rose up to the British Bishops at their entrance; Not that they were so offended for want of a Complement, as Mr. Cressey suggests, but this was look'd on by them, as a Mark of that Superiority which he challenged over them; And therefore they had reason to take so great notice of it, and to infer harder usage from him, when they should be under his Authority. They could not be ignorant what Authority the Pope had given Augustin, and that made them more Observant of his whole Behaviour, and finding it so agreeing to the Character of an Archbishop over the British Churches, They give him that Resolute Answer, That they would not own any Authority he had as Archbishop over them. Which is a sufficient proof, that this was really the main point contested between them.

(2.) As to the British MS. which contains Dinoth's Answer more at large; I Answer;

1. (p)(p)De Script. in Dinoth.Leland observes, That the British Writers give a more ample account of this Matter than is extant in Bede; who is very sparing in what concerns the British Affairs. But from them he saith, That Dinoth did at large dispute with great Learning and Gravity against receiving the authority of the Pope, or of Augustin; and defended the Power of the Archbishop of St. Davids; and affirmed it not to be for the British Interest to own either the Roman Pride or the Saxon Tyranny. And he finds p. 360fault with Gregory, for not admonishing the Saxons of their gross Vsurpations, against their Solemn Oaths; And adds, that it was their duty, if they would be good Christians to restore their unjust and Tyrannical Power to those from whom they had taken it. For Dinoth, out of his great Learning could not but know, that the Pope under a pretence of bringing in the true Faith could not confirm them in their unjust Vsurpation. For if that should be admitted no Princes could be safe in their Dominions. And no doubt the British Bishops looked upon this attempt of Augustin upon them to be the adding one Vsurpation to another: Which made them so adverse to any Communication with the Missionaries which otherwise had been inexcusable.

(2.) The certainty of the British Churches rejecting the Pope's Authority, and Augustin's jurisdiction doth not depend upon the Credit of this British MS. for this is sufficiently clear from Bede's own Words, wherein they declare, they would not own Augustin as Archbishop over them. But if they had owned the Pope's Authority, they ought to have Submitted to him, who acted by virtue of his Commission: And it was not possible for them at such a distance from Rome, to express their disowning his Authority more effectually than by rejecting him, whom he had sent to be Archbishop over them. And Nich. Trivet in his MS. History cited by Sir H. (q)(q)Concil. p. 111.Spelman, saith expresly, that Augustin did demand Subjection from the Britains to him, as the Pope's Legate, but they refused it. So that if this MS. had never been heard of, the Matter of Fact had been nevertheless fully attested.

(3.) The Objections against this MS. are not sufficient to destroy the Authority of it. Sir H. Spelman who sets it down at large in Welsh, English and Latin, tells from whom he had it, and exactly transcribed it, and that it appeared to him to have been an Old MS. taken out of an Older, but without Date or Authour, and believes it to be still in the Cotton Library. Here is all the appearance of Ingenuity and faithfulness that can be expected; and he was a Person of too great Judgment and Sagacity to be easily imposed upon by a modern Invention, or a new found Schedule, p. 361as Mr. Cressy Phrases it. The substance of it is, That the Abbat of Banchor, in the Name of the British Churches declares, That they owe the Subjection of Brotherly Kindness, and Charity to the Church of God, and to the Pope of Rome, and to all Christians: but other obedience than that, they did not know to be due to him whom they called Pope; And for their parts they were under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk, who was under God their Spiritual Overseer and Directour. But, say the Objectors, There was then no Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk, and had not been since the time the Metropolitan Jurisdiction was by St. David transferr'd to Menevia. I grant that from the time of Dubricius the See was transferr'd first to Landaff, and then to St. Davids, but this latter Translation was not agreed to by all the British Bishops; And it appears by the foregoing Discourse, That the Bishops of Landaff did at that time when Oudocëus lived, challenge the Metropolitical Power of Caerleon to themselves, and therefore would not be consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids. And Caerleon having been the ancient Metropolitical See, it was no absurdity at all to mention that in a Dispute which depended upon ancient Right. For the Authority over the British Churches was not upon the account of St. Davids or Landaff, but the Metropolitan Right which belonged to the See of Caerleon. As if in the British times the Metropolitan See had been removed from London to Canterbury, what incongruity had it been in a dispute of Superiority to have alledged, that the British Churches of these parts were under the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of London, although at that time the See were removed to another place? And if this be all to make it appear to be a Forgery, as Mr. Cressy pretends, for all that I can see, it may be a very ancient and genuine MS.

But Alford goes deeper, for he disproves it, because it contradicts the Sense of the British Churches before, which professed subjection to the Roman See.

This is indeed to the purpose if it be well proved, which in the last place comes to be considered.

(3.) To this purpose he alledges, (1.) The Confirmation of St. David's Synod by the Pope's Authority. But p. 362from whence hath he this? From no other Testimony than that of Giraldus Cambrensis cited by Bishop Vsher, who in the same place confesses, That there was no Monument of those Synods at all remaining, nor of the Pope's Confirmation of them; and the other MSS. and Legends of St. David's Life say not a Word of this. How then came Giraldus to affirm it? We are to remember that Giraldus had a Cause depending in the Court of Rome, about the Bishoprick of St. David's, and he knew well enough what Doctrine was pleasing there, and therefore the Testimony of such a one, having no concurrent Evidence to support it is of very little force in this matter. (2.) He mentions the Respect Kentigern shew'd to the Church of Rome, going seven times thither, and having at last his uncanonical Ordination purged, or confirmed by the Pope; as the Authour of his Legend relates. But this seems to me a senseless and ridiculous Legend: For as (r)(r)13. Jan. Vit. Kentigern.Bollandus observes, if Kentigern went seven times to Rome how came he to put off the Errour of his Consecration to the last? If it were good before, why not then? If naught before, then all the Acts performed by him by virtue of his first Consecration were invalid. But there is no more Errour supposed in the Consecration of Kentigern by one Bishop, than there was in that of Seruanus by Palladius, which as (s)(s)De Gest. Scot. l. 2. c. 2.Joh. Major saith, was good in case of necessity. But the Writers of the Legends, living long after the times of the Persons, framed their Stories according to the Customs of their own times; and because such a Consecration was not then held good, therefore the Authour of his Legend takes care to have that defect supplied at Rome, and to make amends he saith, That Kentigern at his death recommended to his Disciples the Decrees of the Fathers, and the Customs of the Roman Church. But what is this to the necessity of Subjection to the Roman See from the general sense of the British Churches? What if Kentigern having been often at Rome, were pleased more with the Customs of that Church, than of the Britains? Doth it hence follow, that those Britains who maintained Customs contrary to the Romans, did think it necessary to conform to the Church of Rome, when the plain Evidence of Fact is to p. 363the contrary; and which hath far more authority than such Legends as these? (3.) Ninianus is (t)(t)Bede. l. 3. c. 4.said to have learnt the Christian Doctrine at Rome, who converted the Southern Picts, and founded the Church ad Candidam Casam; being the first built of Stone. But what follows from hence? Because Ninianus was made a Christian at Rome, therefore the British Churches always own'd the Pope's Supremacy. They are indeed to seek for Arguments who make use of such as these. (4.) He offers to prove the constant Submission of the British Churches to the Roman See from Gildas himself, and he makes use of two Arguments.

(1.) From his calling the British Churches Sedem Petri, the See of St. Peter. I confess Gildas hath these words, but quite in another Sense; For in the beginning of his Invective against the Clergy, among other things he charges them, that they did Sedem Petri Apostoli immundis Pedibus usurpare. Doth he mean that they defiled St. Peter's Chair at Rome? No certainly, but he takes St. Peter's Chair for that which all the Clergy possessed, and implies no more than their Ecclesiastical Function; and so he opposes it to (u)(u)Gild. p. 58, 60.the Chair of Judas, into which, he saith, such wicked Men fell. But if they will carry St. Peter's Chair to Rome, they must carry the Chair of Judas thither too.

(2.) (w)(w)A. D. 548. n. 4.Alford insists on this Passage in Gildas, That they were more ambitious of Degrees in the Church than of the Kingdom of Heaven; And after a bitter Invective against their Symoniacal Contracts, he adds, that where they were opposed they ran beyond Sea to compass their ends. Now saith Alford, whither should this be but to Rome? For as Leland observes in the Case of Giraldus Cambrensis, sunt enim omnia Venalia Romae: all things are bought and sold there; and therefore whither should such notorious Symoniacal Persons go, but to Rome? This is a very surprising Argument, and is more wisely past over by Mr. Cressy than insisted on by Alford, as being a horrible Reflexion on the Court of Rome in those days. But to say Truth, there is not one Word of Rome in Gildas; but if they will apply it to Rome, how can we help it?

p. 364To conclude this Discourse, (x)(x)A. D. 604. n. 10.Alford is much displeased with (y)(y)Concil. p. 110.Sir H. Spelman for paralleling the Case of the British Bishops, and Augustine, with that of the Cyprian Bishops against the Patriarch of Antioch: But for what Reason? Why, saith he, The Council of Ephesus did not permit the Cyprian Bishops to decline the Iudgment of their Patriarch, but declared the Bishop of Antioch not to be their Patriarch. Very well! And is not this the very case here? The Bishop of Rome challenged a Patriarchal Power over the British Churches, and appoints an Archbishop over them, but they deny that he had such Authority over them, they being governed by their own Metropolitan, as the Cyprian Bishops were: and therefore by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus, they were bound to preserve their own Rights, and consequently to oppose that foreign Iurisdiction, which Augustine endeavoured to set up over them.

THE END.

End of the text · Edward Stillingfleet, The Antiquities of the British Churches (1685)