the Reign of King Kenneth the Third and by many and clear posteriour Statutes founded upon sad experience And if such Limitations could be introduc'd they could be abrogated by express consent and so our Kings are now freed from them 5. I clear that these expressions crept into our Histories by the humour which most Churchmen were in at that time of having Kings depend on the Church and so not absolute in which our Historians are less guilty than those of other Nations whom in friendship I will not now name And as to the instance brought from our Histories to prove that the People depos'd Kings That concluded onely that the People were Rebels but not that our Kings were Limited but to have deny'd our Histories in as far as they prov'd this it concerned me to have denyed them till Kenneth the Third's time which had been very ridiculous according to the Bishop of St. Asaph's own opinion and had justly defamed my Book amongst my own Countreymen And how should we acknowledge this to be a peculiar guilt in our Historians except we deny the truth of all English Histories since William the Conquerour's time Because they mention Limitations extorted from their Kings murthers committed upon many of them and the right of Election to be stated in the people as I have prov'd in a Letter to Dr. Stillingfleet unfit to be exposed to publick view for the same Reasons that I think the Doctor should have supprest that undutifull dis-respectfull part of his debate against our Historians who deserve much less to be taxt than his own Friends for their ill founded conceptions of the rights of Monarchs in those days and to reform which I have been somewhat more instrumental than the Doctor But such injurious and national Excursions as this seem to prove to Conviction more partiality than consideration in the Doctor though otherways an honest and learned man in cold bloud But to shew that he is not a dis-interessed Critick I must observe that he ingenuously confesses that he ow'd so much service to so worthy and excellent a Friend as the Bishop of St. Asaph for though he adds that if my Arguments would hold good they would also overthrow several things in his late Book yet this is but a mere Pretext for nothing in my Book relates any way to any part of that Subject which he treats upon except in the second and fifth Chapters wherein he takes also my Book expressly to task in the same Points And therefore I conclude that if he though a Church-man thought himself concerned in honour to own his Friend albeit an Aggressour I as a King's Advocate may be more justly allow'd to own our Kings when attacked unjustly and unnecessarily by their own Subjects and Beneficiaries And though it may be instanced that the antiquity of the Royal-line has been controverted in other Nations yet it cannot be instanced that this has been done by Subjects after their Kings and Parliaments have seriously founded the Loyalty of the Nation upon that antiquity and the Kings have asserted that antiquity under their own hands upon so solemn occasions which is our case and where the antiquity it self is not absolutely fabulous but on the contrary is in it self so reasonable and is warranted by the Testimonies of contemporary Historians and allowed by the most judicious Criticks CHAP. II. That the Scots were placed here before the Year 503. NOW without either vanity or levity or any distracting digressions I must put the Reader in mind that in my Book I did onely undertake to prove against the Bishop of St. Asaph That the Scots did settle in Britain before the Year 503. And after I had prov'd this sufficiently by the clear and positive Testimonies which I adduced and had made it appear by some of the same Testimonies that we settled here before Iulius Caesar's time and particularly that Reuda one of our Kings was expressly acknowledged by Beda one of the Authours I cite I proceeded to prove that our Historians are to be believed as to King Fergus there being onely a hundred and thirty years betwixt these two Kings As to which our Historians being many and men of Reputation they ought to be believed they having narrated nothing that is improbable and having declared that they were sufficiently warranted so to write by the Records delivered to them by Authority out of our ancient Monasteries then extant and that Oral Tradition universally received of a whole Nation is a great Fortification of so short a step as a hundred and thirty years And in the last part of my Book I clear against Archbishop Usher and the Bishop of St. Asaph That this Countrey was called Scotland and We Scots before the Year 1000 a position they were driven to maintain in defence of their former Paradox Dr. Stillingfleet without taking notice of these Points which I treated separately in the method now mentioned would more cunningly than ingenuously make his Reader believe that I have undertaken by every Citation and Reason to prove the truth of all the parts of our History from Fergus downward and therefore when I adduce a Citation for proving that we were settled here before the Year 503 or that this Countrey was called Scotland before the Year 1000 He asks Where is there mention in these Citations of Fergus And takes no care to consider my Citations with relation to the particular Points for which they are produced as in my Citation of Scaliger concerning the Scotobrigantes and in my Citation of Claudian c. To return then to my first Method for the Readers fuller conviction I must put him in mind that I did prove the first of these positions viz. That we were setled in Scotland before the Year 503. 1. By the Authority of the British Historians within the Isle 2. By the Roman Historians who could not but know us well because that Nation fought long with us 3. By Ecclesiastick Writers and Historians who prove that the Scots were acknowledged to have been a Christian Nation here before that time and therefore behov'd to have been setled here 4. I fortifie these Citations by most clear Reasons 5. Because the import of some of these Authorities is controverted I appeal to the best Historians and Criticks as the most competent Judges betwixt the reverend Prelate and my self and these I hope will be found to have asserted the truth of this my Position and the justness of my Citations The first Citations I used were from Gildas and Beda the most ancient and esteemed of all the English Writers And I did begin with Beda because he transcribes and explains Gildas and I shall repeat the Argument as I stated it in my first Book The venerable Beda though a Saxon himself and so an Enemy to us having written an exact Chronology according to the periods of time does in his first chap. de priscis Incolis tell us that God was praised in five Languages
the other that there was such a King in England as Lucius and that he introduced into it the Christian Religion in which the Doctor agrees with him against the Bishop of St. Asaph and I hope our Authours will at least give a deference to the opinion of two such emnent English Divines The Laws also of all Nations allow that when Papers are lost the tenour of them may be proved providing a probable way of losing of them to be instructed which the Lawyers of all Nations call Casus amissionis But so it is we assign two remarkable occasions and sufficient reasons to instruct this Casus amissionis The first in the Reign of Edward the first who industriously did take away our Records Which in the process before the Pope we offered to prove by most famous Witnesses in presence also of the said King who by his not contradicting did acknowledge this matter of Fact The second in the time of our Reformation in which the blind Zeal of some and the interested Avarice of others prevailed with them to destroy the Records of our Monasteries And so far are these accidents true not onely in History but in our sad Experience that we want in matter of private right what might have been furnisht us both from our Records and Monasteries And so it were ridicuous to think that we abstracted those vouchers upon design especially seeing long after that and till Luddus time no Nation nor Authour ever controverted our History and I Challenge the Doctor to produce any such Authour as certainly they would have done if the matters of Fact had been either ridiculous in themselves or inconsistent with the tract of other Histories Of this fundamental Argument the Doctor takes no notice and makes no answer to it but I to fortifie this Argument having insisted upon the probability of what our Historians relate and the Reputation of the relaters he runs out in an answer to both these to which I shall make a Reply But I conceive nothing can take off the strength of my Argument except he either prove that there could have been no such Warrants and that what is related is in it self inconsistent with the History of other Nations or that he had produced to us good Authours contemporary with these things which he denies and we assert and had shewed that these Authours deny these Transactions or deliver things inconsistent with them neiof which he has done nor can doe The first general Ground insisted on by the Doctor is that we have no Historians who wrote in the time in which the things related were alledged to have been acted to which it is answered as formerly that an Authour writing from sufficient Records is as much to be believed as if he had lived in the time and that is our Case And I again renew my Query if the Doctor thinks that Dr. Burnet's Book of the History of the Reformation should not be believed in the next Age though the Warrants of it were burnt which is very possible and had it not been great folly and impudence in five or six honest men to have separately written that they and each of them had the said Records when they wrote from them And though the Doctor insinuates that this has been formerly done by one or two which he cites yet there were not many concurring there as here and it is a very different thing for one Authour to say that he wrote from such a Record a particular passage in which none was concerned and for many worthy Men to say in their Epistles to their Kings and Nation that what they wrote was true from the Records which they had given them from Monasteries and other publick Records and to appeal to them as then extant and certainly many would be very desirous to see these Records in the time of the writing these Histories especially seeing the first Historians who appear in Print have both Rivals and Enemies as well as curious Criticks and the Monasteries themselves and the Keepers of the pretended Records could not but have known the Forgery if any such had been Or durst so many ingenious Men though they had been careless of their Conscience have trusted their Reputation in so nice and quick-sighted an Age as that wherein all of them wrote to the discretion of so many who could have discover'd the Cheat Nor do we find even from what the Doctor himself writes that the single Testimony of these who pretend to have written from Records is rejected except where what they say is redargued as inconsistent with other uncontroverted Histories and Authours or narrate things in themselves incredible as is evident from the instances of Humbald Geoffery Annius and others so that to reject our Histories lest the World should be obliged to believe these is no solid nor just way of reasoning But the Bishop himself to shun this did with a greater shew of reason urge that our Historians were but to be accounted as one since they followed one another in a File But I did fully take off this by proving that each of them saw some few of these Records and Warrants a part and that they differed enough to shew that they were in no Conspiracy and this I hold as acknowledged since the Doctor returns no answer to it That there could be no sufficient Warrants for our History from the Annals of our Monasteries is contended because the Monasteries themselves are much later than Fergus the First who is to be proved by these Annals But to this it is answered that Iona and Abercorn are Monasteries acknowledged by Beda as long prior to Beda's time and though the Monasteries were later yet they might have Records as old as Fergus for this is very probable in it self and consequently ought to be believed since it is proved by famous Witnesses And whereas it is answered that bare Probability is not sufficient to sustain a History but the Annals themselves out of which it is taken must be produced My return to this is that if bare Probability were onelyproposed the answer is good but it is not so when I say the thing is probable of it self and is actually proved by Witnesses beyond all exception And whereas to overturn this it is contended from the Irish Annals that Fergus whom we call the second was our first King To this I need say no more but that I proved in my former Book that all the accounts which the Irish gave of our entry into this Kingdom are inconsistent and contradictory one to another and to which the Doctor has made no answer and therefore they are not to be believed in themselves but much less are they to be believed when contrary to the Annals of all our Monasteries attested by famous Witnesses who saw them and in a matter in which we were more concerned than they and so it is probable we would have been more carefull to preserve it's Memory 2. I have proved in the
2. The Irish produce no Warrants for their Annals though much later than ours and as we are equal in other things so we are stronger in this 3. We have formerly prov'd as convincingly as can be in any such case that we had such Annals in these our Monasteries and that our Historians compil'd our Histories from them and that they were lost by the Invasions of the English and by the demolishing of our Monasteries in an Age wherein all their Records were thought Reliques of Popery The Doctor 's own chief grounds for preference in point of Credibility are Testimonies founded upon Ancient Credible Writers having a concurrent probability of circumstances and that amongst these Ancient Writers consideration is to be had of their abilities opportunities care and diligence according to which Rules I have formerly produced many concurring Testimonies from Ancient Credible Authours relating things credible and probable and now in competition with the Irish as to the abilities and opportunities of our Authours and their care and diligence in collecting our Histories I contend we ought to be preferable because beside the grounds above urg'd I must remember my Readers that the Doctor denies the Irish any opportunity of transmitting their Histories by Letters till after St. Patrick's time But so it is that I have prov'd that Palladius's Mission was to the Scots in Britain and the Doctor has acknowledg'd that this Mission of Palladius was Prior to that of Saint Patrick and which is higher the Doctor acknowledges that the Unconquer'd Nations beyond the Roman Wall were the Christians spoke of by Tertullian and I have prov'd that we were one of these Unconquered Nations And therefore since we had the use of Letters before the Irish Letters being the surest Vehicles of History and Christianity the chief Nursery of Letters it follows necessarily from the Doctor 's own Rules that our Histories are more credible than the Irish. And this Argument holds equally good whether we our selves were the Unconquer'd Nations when Christianity was first planted or became Masters by conquest of these Christians here who had the early use of Letters even as the English or Saxons had good grounds of knowledge from the Letters and Learning of the Britans whom they conquer'd The next is that we had greater opportunity to know our own Histories and greater reason to use care and diligence in writing them than the Irish who were Strangers The third is that the Irish having err'd so grossly in the last and most uncontroverted part of our History and in which they contradict the Foreign and Contemporary Historians of other Nations it cannot be urg'd that their Credibility is of any moment in the more ancient and darker part of our Antiquities and History wherein they differ from us And lastly our Historians have for their Abilities been very famous for many Ages in Foreign Nations and amongst the best Criticks whereas we have seen no Histories from Ireland till of late and much later than ours And though we are far from having any low esteem of the Irish Abilities yet we conceive that the Doctor should remember that by the suggestion of his Countrymen Pope Adrian gives the Kingdom of Ireland to Henry the Second of England ad declarandum indoctis rudibus populis Christianoe fidei veritatem c. whereupon they writ a Letter to Pope Iohn wherein they complain that they were severely and cruelly us'd as Beasts and therefore desire that his Holiness would confirm the Election they had made of Edward Brother to King Robert the Bruce for their King The Learn'd Bishop Usher was pleas'd in partiality to his own Country to assert that this his Majesty's Kingdom was never called Scotland till 1000 years after Christ. But the Reverend Bishop of St. Asaph finding that this was not tenable he onely asserts that after the Year 900. we got the rest of the Country and then it onely came to be called Scotland Both these Opinions I have endeavoured to refute in the Seventh Section of my Book where I have clear'd all this matter in nine Positions to all which the Doctor is pleased to answer nothing save 1. That I have unwarrantably asserted that the Name of Scots doth originally belong to the Scots in Britain and onely by way of Communication to these in Ireland But I beg his pardon to tell him that I have no such Position though for confirming my Answers to these two Reverend Bishops in the former Debates I did onely for farther clearing the matter assert that the old name under which Ireland was known to the Greeks was Ierna and to the Latines Hibernia which I prov'd from Bishop Usher himself 2. I asserted that before the Year 400. there was no Author that made mention of Scotia or Scoti but when they meant our Country and Country-men and this I have prov'd without any Answer But in the 3. place I positively say pag. 143. of my First Book that I was not concerned to debate the Antiquity of the names of Scotia or Scoti but onely when we first setled here And therefore though our Historians do assert that the Irish were first called Scots that contradicts not any of my Positions For though very anciently the Irish might be called Scots yet about the time that the Romans and others begun to write of the Scots the Books now extant do onely apply these Names to us and to our Country And the Authour of Ogygia does himself acknowledge that the Romans first invented the Name of Scotland and if so it was probably applicable to Us for they had much commerce with us but none with Ireland Amongst the many Citations which I adduced for proving that Scotland was called Ireland in Bede's time one was from his Ecclesiastical History wherein Bede relates that Egfrid King of Northumberland having sent an Army into Ireland under Bertus he wasted the Country and the Innocent People and the next year having sent an Army to waste the Province of the Picts contrary to the advice of his Friends and of St. Cuthbert God suffered that Army to be destroyed because the former year he had rejected their advice that he should not invade Scotland which did not wrong him And to clear that the Scotia here exprest was not Ireland he adds the English and Scots who abide in Britain This Passage as well as the others which I have cited and shall cite proves 1. That Scotland then has been promiscuously called by the names of Hibernia and Scotia for the same thing is said first to have been done in Scotia and then in Hibernia And this answers the Objection Hiberni revertuntur domum and where could their home be but in Ireland 2. It proves that this our Country was called Scotia in Beda's time and so long before the Year 1000. which the Bishop denies Nor can it be prov'd that the King of Northumberland went to make war in Ireland otherwise than from Offlahartie's
THE ANTIQUITY OF THE Royal Line OF SCOTLAND Farther Cleared and Defended Against the Exceptions lately offer'd by Dr. STILLINGFLEET In his Vindication of the Bishop of St. ASAPH By Sir George Mackenzie His Majesty's Advocate for the Kingdom of SCOTLAND LICENSED Nov. 2. 1685. Ro. L'Estrange LONDON Printed for Ioseph Hindmarsh at the Golden-Ball against the Royal Exchange 1686. TO THE KING SIR IT is not my practice to plead any thing for your Majesty with zeal untill I find it a matter of some importance and my self likewise convinced that I cannot answer my own Arguments By this rule when I first saw the Bishop of St. Asaph's Book I took some pains to persuade my self that it contain'd nothing prejudicial to that right of precedency which is due to your Royal Race as the most Ancient Monarchy which we know But finding that there was no way to secure this precedency to the Royal Family against those consequences which necessarily arose from his Positions I thought it my duty at that time to answer his Lordship's Book as I do now Dr. Stillingfleet's especially since they in overturning the ancient settlement of the Royal Line in Scotland destroy one of the great Foundations whereby your Majesty's Grandfather your Father and your Last Parliament have farther engag'd and encourag'd the Loyalty of this your Ancient Kingdom Wherefore Sir these Reverend Divines will now I hope hold me excus'd in regard that I pleaded first for them with my self before I pleaded against them for your Majesty And if I could have found any man to have satisfied me as to the inconveniences arising to the Crown in these Points I had never printed that Book in defence of the Royal Family and of my Native Country But now humbly to satisfy your Majesty as to the dangerousness of these Positions even supposing the Authours innocent of any ill design as I am apt to think they are and to convince them how impartial I am upon any National Account I beg leave to mind your Sacred Majesty that some of our Own Historians having erred with as little ill design as they touching the Succession of King Robert the Second An Argument was drawn from it in favour of Bastards and was much boasted of by the Enemies of the true Royal Line and thereupon I did to the satisfaction of all indifferent men refute our own Historians in that Point as I hope I do now these Gentlemen in the Points controverted Scarce any thing Sir can be thought inconsiderable wherein a Crown is concern'd or any consequence so remote but should be adverted to in a Season when a long Rebellion has so far debaucht the Inclinations of too many of your Majesty's Subjects But certainly nothing can be thought inconsiderable which Kings and Parliaments have judg'd so usefull for establishing the precedence of the Sovereign and for confirming the Affection and Loyalty of the Subject And the Doctor 's way of telling us in place of all other defence that the Irish carry up the Royal Line within six degrees of Japhet and so we shorten it is not serious enough in a Subject we ought to treat of with veneration since the Doctor in the same Book does but make himself merry with Offlahertie the Assertor of this pretended Antiquity Sir the agreement of Men of different Professions almost at the same time against the Royal Line is very remarkable some endeavouring by their Swords to cut it short at that end which lay next to them Whilst others by their Pens have undertaken what derogates from its glory by lopping off its remoter end which I 'm sure lay far out of their way And I wish that as your Majesty has most successfully defeated the one by your Victorious Arms so I may be so happy in your prudent Reign as to contribute somewhat to disappoint the other by what I have said in vindication of its Antiquity Sir The dutifull inclination I have to serve your Majesty is I confess much heightned by the Royal Obligations you have been pleased to lay upon our Nation not onely in your gratious protection of it but in the glory you have added to that Royal Family under which we have been so long happy Your Majesty owes your success next to that mercifull and miraculous providence which still attends your Sacred Person and Family to your own wise Conduct and to the great Iustice of your Cause and not to your Councils or Servants though it is your Majesty's goodness to be as kind to them as if you did And therefore Sir I am so far from valuing my self upon any success I may or can pretend to have in pleading for your Majesty either in Print or at the Bar that I shall still ascribe whatever advantages I may gain that way to the Iustice of your Majesty's Cause without arrogating any part of it to my own Skill or Eloquence And now your Majesty having by your own Royal Influence and the Prudence of your proper Conduct overturn'd in so short a time all the Designs of a Rebellion so deeply rooted And by your gentleness and clemency overcome the obstinacy of your most inveterate Enemies which is by far the more wonderfull Victory thereby contracting into one year the glories of a long Reign I can never have the vanity to imagine your Majesty should yet any way need the mean assistence of Sir Your Majesty's most Dutifull Loyal and Obedient Subject and Servant George Mackenzie THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE King's Advocat in duty bound to defend the Antiquity of the Royal Line This debate as it was unnecessarily started so it 's unwarrantably continued The Authour's Answers to Buchanan's Jus Regni clear'd and defended CHAP. II. That the Scots were placed here before the Tear 503. CHAP. III. What the Bishop of St. Asaph and Dr. Stillingfleet say against our Histories from Fergus the First examined CHAP. IV. Our Authours vindicated in the accounts they give of the Genealogy of our Kings CHAP. V. The Irish Genealogy of our Kings compared with the Accounts given by the Chronicle of Melross and both compared with the Genealogies contained in our Histories with a full proof that our Historians are to be preferred to the Irish Annals as to this point Ogygia examin'd The Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland farther cleared and defended against the Exceptions lately offered by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph CHAP. I. KING Iames having in his Basilicon Doron p. 201. founded his Royal Prerogative upon King Fergus's having made himself King and Lord as well of the whole Lands as of the Inhabitants of Scotland and King Charles the First having in a Letter to his Parliament An. 1641. founded that kindness which he expected from the Scots upon this that they and their Predecessours were Sworn to maintain that Race of their Kings which he now represented after 108 Descents I leave it to all indifferent men if I as King's
a Nation before Constantine's time because no Authours spoke of us till then For says he the Longobards and Burgundians were established Nations long before they were known by these names And the Nation of which Scaliger speaks is that Nation Quae trajecit ex Hiberniâ in Britanniam And it were ridiculous to apply this to the Scots in Ireland or deny that Scaliger thought we setled here while the Roman Empire flourished Scaliger also there says that after we had troubled Britain by Incursions we were at last forc'd to contain our selves within our own bounds Which shews 1. That we had made Incursions long before Antoninus's time which was about 100 years after Christ contrary to what the Bishop of St. Asaph saith 2. Antoninus forced us to contain our selves within our own bounds and therefore we had bounds and marches of our own before that time and so we were setled long before 503. And all this agrees with Eumenius and Pacatius and proves that what they write relates to us 3. Pausanias whom Scaliger there cites tells us that Antoninus took much Land from them Ergo they had Land before that time for that Land could not be in Ireland for Antoninus never took Land from the Irish. And whoever these Brigantes were yet Scaliger there makes us the Brigantes and the question there is onely concerning Scaliger's opinion of us Nor am I concerned at his calling us Brigantes for I can prove that Brigantes signifies not Robbers but Highlanders from the word Briga which signifies an Hill And I receive kindly the Apology made by the Doctor for the Bishop that his Lordship called us not Robbers but onely produced a Testimony from Gildas whom I excuse for abusing us he being of that Nation which was over-run by us and probably our spoiling of them might be the Ground of his Quarrel The Doctor likewise argues against my Citations from Favin and Paulus Aemilius as speaking onely of an alliance betwixt Achaius and Charles the Great and nothing as to Fergus nor the Succession of Kings for 330. years before Christ's Nativity But alas How trivial is this Reflexion For I never adduced these Authours for proving directly that part of our History relating to Fergus but did justly argue that we must have been setled here much earlier than the Year 503. because about the Year 790. we were a very considerable Nation and entered into a League with Charles the Great which these Authours do fully prove And I likewise produced this Citation to shew how unwarrantably the Bishop of St. Asaph confined us to some few Countries now erected into the Earldom of Argyle As to Sigonius I shall set down some Citations which formerly I forgot to place on the Margin But it is strange that the Doctor could not find them though he uses not to search much for what makes against him His words are Eodem anno qui fuit 360 post Christum Julianus apud Parisios hibernans Scotos Pictósque Britannos incursantes audiens Lupicinum magistrum armorum in Britanniam destinavit And in another place he says Anno verò Christi 449. Britanni namque à Pictis Scotis qui Pictis adjuncti partem Insulae ad Aquilonem tenebant desperato Romanorum auxilio ad Anglo-Saxones Germaniae populos confugerunt From which Citations it is undeniable that Sigonius thought that we were possest of the Northern part of this Isle before the Year 360. and that at that time we were joyned with the Picts in possessing the same I cited also Selden's clear Authority to which nothing is answered And when I said in the first impression of my Book that all Historians had own'd our History I meant all who wrote before Luddus and Camden which I still believe to be true And yet to prevent quibbling I ordered the expunging of the word All in the second Impression before I knew of any censures but my own And now the Doctor produceth onely two who wrote since their time and are not of such weight as these cited by me And if Ubbo Emmius had considered what I now produce he had at least acknowledged our History before the Year 503 whereas he does not so much as allow our History till after the Year 829 which even the Bishop of St. Asaph will think ridiculous and which being after the French League is redargued by unquestionable Proofs neither is Boxhornius special and has been misled by Usher Thus I hope I have again overturned the Bishop of St. Asaph's two chief Positions relating to us viz. That there were no Scots in Britain at all before the Year 300 which is expresly contrary to what is said by Eumenius Tertullian Latinus Pacatius Seneca Spartan and Beda and that other Position viz. That we were onely here by way of Incursion from the Year 300. till the Year 503. which was all that I did chiefly undertake and for which though I needed not to have produced Arguments but onely answered his Citations for according to Dr. Stillingfleet's own Position a received History is not to be overturned but by very convincing Proofs yet because I found that neither the Bishop nor the Doctor could bring any Proofs to overturn our History I have likewise proved the truth of it as to these Periods of time by Authorities which I may modestly say very learned men have thought unanswerable and which the Doctor 's answers being so insufficient after the assistance he has got shew to be so CHAP. III. What the Bishop of St. Asaph and Dr. Stillingfleet say against our Histories from Fergus the first examined THough I was not obliged to maintain our History beyond the Year 503. that being sufficient to overturn the two Positions laid down by the Bishop yet I think it fit and reasonable for me to examine also what our two learned Adversaries say against our Histories in general even as to these dark times in which neither our Neighbours nor we can get such a sequel and chain of Authours as these I have produced to prove our being here before the Year 503. Let us then remember 1. that we are onely obliged to produce Historical not Mathematical nor Legal proofs 2. That we are onely maintaining our Origine to be from a Neighbour Nation and very near to the Age of Letters and that there is nothing in this our Origine either vain or fabulous we neither deriving our selves from Aegyptians Grecians nor Trojans nor contradicting even in these first dawnings of our History the uncontroverted Tract of foreign Historians And so all these long digressions which the Doctor to shew his own learning produces concerning Berosus Manetho Suffridus and others and particularly of their rejecting their own fabulous descent from Brutus is absolutely impertinent there being nothing that can be alledged in our History to contradict foreign Historians which I have not taken off in my first Book without any answer made to it And though there should be some Errours in the Tract of
first Chapter not onely by the assertions of our own Historians but by all the Historians who speak of us both without and within the Isle that we had Kings long before Fergus the second and that we had even Christian Kings and it is almost impossible that our Monasteries could have been mistaken in that or at least that they would not have condescended who was the other Christian King if Donald was not And at least our Adversaries should be put to prove who was our First Christian King or acquiesce in him whom we assign And it is also very strange that not onely we but the Romish Church it self should be mistaken they being very positive in concurring with us whereas no other Nation nor Church condescends as I have said upon any other First Christian King or Authours to prove it And to conclude this Period I must say that it is wonderfull that positive Witnesses that say they saw old Annals fortified by their Histories both at home and abroad Pagan and Christian should be less believed than the Ballads and Traditions of another Nation who have none of these advantages That Beda should be of less credit than Iocelin and Legends in which I dare say the Bishop and Doctor believe but very little if any thing at all save this and why are not the Legends of St. Congall and St. Brendan who mention the settlement of St. Fergus the first as good as Iocelin and others produced to prove that Fergus the second was our first King especially seeing they likewise concur with Beda in his Rheuda Whereas the other contradict him and that our Histories which have rejected Gathelus and Simon Brek because that too great Antiquity is improbable should be overturned by those who positively own a Lineal well proved descent from Iaphet and condescend upon days and months and that our Historians which are many and very much esteemed over all Europe should be overturned by the Authority of Rhimes and rags of History which no Man adventured to form into any Body whatsoever till of late some Specimen is given in which amongst other rare Marks of veracity our League with France was alledged to have been made with their Kings as if France understood as little their own Leagues as they would have Rome to understand their own Conversion or that all the Nations of Europe should have been mistaken as to this palpable Point I reflect not on the Publishers of the Manuscript of the Abbacy of Melros printed at Oxford for I honour every thing that comes from that learn'd Society in a special manner but it is no reflexion on them to say that we have another much fuller in what makes for Scotland though it could not be so exact as the other Monasteries since it was ofttimes of old under the Saxons who would certainly lessen what relates to us and thus the fault lay in the Copy and not in the Publishers for the Authour of that Manuscript calls Beda our Countreyman so he must have been then our enemy but however it begins not with Alpin as the Doctor alledges though I mention that because he is not mentioned in the Oxford Edition for it declares that it is to continue where the Reverend Beda left and so is a proof of our Nation and History from that time and the differences of that from ours shall be printed and I have at present printed these few And though Buchanan had the Books of Pluscardin and Pasley yet it does not follow that therefore the best and most part of the Books of our Monasteries were not carried to Rome or destroyed and so cannot be recovered from Rome and how can it be imagin'd that those who burnt all our Magnificent Churches would have spar'd a few Books written by Monks and which were so little esteem'd in those times amongst our Zealots The Doctor in proving there was no such Authour as Veremund forgets that I have prov'd by two famous Witnesses a Lord of the Session and a Principal of a College both learned and devout men much esteem'd abroad where they travell'd that they had seen the Book and here is no bare probability And I hope it is uncontroverted that the depositions of two Witnesses cannot be taken away by probabilities nor can it be alledged that Chambres followed Boethius's faith in this for he says he had it and he cites many things material out of Veremund nor does the Learned Doctor Pearson prove any other way the truth of St. Ignatius's Epistles than by producing the Testimonies of Origin and others who have cited passages out of those Letters as Letters written by St. Ignatius though none of these Authours liv'd in the age with St. Ignatius and so they did not legally prove that these Letters were written by him which are not in Boethius But however let us a little examine the Doctor 's probabilities The first is that many have forg'd Authours as Annius good Ergo these two learned Men did it à posse ad esse non valet consequentia 2. We have nam'd other Authours who are not now extant Ergo Veremund never was good again and if Fordon had been lost or Elphinstoun whom we have not yet seen such Authours had been both denied and so had that learned Manuscript written by Craig which we have but lately recovered 3. Fordon cites not Veremund though he cites many others This is such another consequence as if I should argue against the Doctor that Boethius cites not Fordon ergo Fordon never was But I chuse rather to argue thus the Bishop and Doctor both think that Boethius did onely transcribe Fordon and yet he never cited him which they think he did that he might have the honour of being thought our first general Historian himself And yet it is prov'd there was such a Book as Fordon then extant and therefore I conclude by the same reason that Fordon transcribed much of Veremund and therefore conceal'd his Authour 4. Bishop Elphinstoun mentions him not but to this I answer that the Manuscript is not ours and so may be gelt but I conceive by the Doctor 's Epitome of it that it is it self but an abridgment of Fordon and therefore he mentions not Veremund because Fordon had not mentioned him and it was very ordinary in those days to write Epitomes of Fordon some whereof are extant with us and Boethius tells us that Elphinstoun never wrote an History but onely prepar'd some materials for one and if he wrote a History here is again another Historian who being a devout and learned Bishop must be thought not to have written without sufficient warrants Though then probabilities could overturn the deposition of Witnesses yet these have no weight but what the Doctor 's Authority gives them And though it were prov'd that Baker Baloeus and the other English Historians whom I cite had not seen Veremund yet surely they thought it not onely probable but certain that there was such an Authour
Against Fordon it is urg'd that he mentions not our first Kings from Fergus the First to Fergus the Second and that he confesses he knew not how long any of these Kings after Fergus reign'd and from this also it is concluded that we have no Manuscripts to instruct the same Nam says he ad plenum scripta non reperimus To which it is answered that this is a great argument of his ingenuity for if he could have written without sufficient warrants why could he not have made up this as well as the rest But the true reason is that the Warrants did then lie in the Monastery especially at Icolmekill where Veremund's History was likewise kept And it is clear by Boethius's dedication to the King that he thanked his Majesty for ordering that these should be delivered to him and if the Doctor should at present write such another Dedication to the King thanking him for letting him have the use of the Alexandrian MSS. of the Bible out of his Bibliotheque could any man afterwards think that there were no such MSS and that the Warrants of the Histories us'd so to be kept as not to be got without publick Authority is clear by the custome of Nations acknowledg'd by the Doctor out of Livy and asserted by me in my First Book As to our Nation from Paulus Iovius who was not interested in us and consequently it was no wonder that Fordon who was but a mean Priest could not have Veremund and the other Warrants which were necessary for filling up the History of our Kings between the two Fergusses which Boethius himself could not recover without the King's command the Treasurer's assistance and his own great expence and labour and I know not whether it would not have been a greater villany and folly in him to have asserted all this if it had not been true himself and all Persons interested being alive or a proof of Fordon's ingenuity in not filling up what was deficient through want of the Warrants Against Boethius it is urg'd by the Doctor that he could not have had Veremund and other sufficient Warrants from Icolmekill as is pretended because his History is printed in the Year 1526. and he had not these Records from Icolmekill till the Year 25. so that the History could not be compil'd printed and revis'd in a year To which it is answered that Hector Boethius is acknowledg'd to have had a better invention than to have forg'd so improbable a falsity especially in a thing he might have contriv'd as he pleas'd and in which the honour of the Nation was not concern'd and as to which the King Treasurer and Monks of Icolmekill could have controll'd him but this is easily reconcil'd without a miracle for certainly Boethius was writing his History long before he got these Records and doing what he could as Fordon had done without them before and having at last got them after the third message Tertio Nuncio which shews he was writing before he might have easily added from the beginning through the whole Book what was to be expected from Veremund and others and which I dare say the laborious Dr. Stillingfleet could have done in a month and there was time enough from the beginning of 25. to the end of 26. as we may well enough suppose being near two years to have done all this and this was a far less miracle than for the Bishop and Doctor to have sent Palladius from Rome to Ireland to preach there long enough to have a sufficient proof of the Irish being obstinate and to despair of success to return and to die in a Countrey of the Picts all in one year and St. Patrick who was not then present but was in France to have got the news of this death to have formed the resolution and to have gone to Rome and prevail'd with the Pope to ordain him and all this in the small space betwixt the 25th of December and the 6th of April following at which time the Pope died whose preceding sickness could not but have retarded that Affair I admire the Doctor for insisting on the Printer's mistake not mine in calling Turgot Archbishop of Saint Andrews for I call him p. 26. Edition the first Bishop of St. Andrews and so the calling him Archbishop afterwards could not have been ignorance in me and the Printers thought all Bishops of St. Andrews must be Archbishops and by the mistake of the same kind without any observation Martial is made to have liv'd in Augustus's time whereas I plac'd him in Domitian's and sent a Copy so corrected in print to the Bishop of St. Asaph and the half of our own printed Copies are right in this but in the Second Edition I expung'd these and some other literal faults before I knew that the Doctor or any else was to write an answer and I am glad the Doctor is so fashionable a Gentleman as to understand Martial better than I do nor would I have insisted on the mistakes about Fordon and Dempster if these had not been material to my purpose whereof the one is not yet answered and the other not at all notic'd by the Doctor I urg'd upon this head also that the Sacred History was for many hundreds of years preserv'd by Oral Tradition for though the Iews and we acknowledge that the Scripture was penn'd by Divine Inspiration yet in arguing against Pagans we must make this probable by other Arguments And the Doctor in his Origines Sacrae which Book I esteem very much uses the same Common Places with me and amongst other things tells us that men lived so long in those days that they were able to transmit Historical Relations with much more certainty than now And Iosephus for proving the Sacred History against Appion cites Foreign Authours that are all lost now and yet we believe there were such Historians And albeit afterwards the Priests did preserve their Histories with great exactness yet that way of preserving History by Records took not place for many ages And though our Monasteries are not to be compared with their Priesthood yet they were sufficient especially in these sincerer times to preserve our Histories And though what they preserv'd is not to be believ'd with a Divine belief yet they ought to have an Historical one allowed them especially since they are fortified by the probability of what they preserv'd and the concurrence of as much Roman History as France or Spain can pretend to Nor are the Citations from our old Laws to be contemn'd for these at least might have been preserved by practice as Lycurgus's Laws And it is undeniable that Skene our famous Register and Antiquary did within these 100 years declare He had old Manuscripts bearing these our old Laws though they are now lost without weakning our esteem or observance of them and he has printed many of them And though Historians might have adventur'd to print some Historical Passages without sufficient warrant yet neither they nor
our Register durst have adventur'd to print Laws nor would our Governours have suffered this without sufficient warrants And we must be believ'd in what concerns us and us onely Nor does it follow that because the Laws of Alexander the Third were lost therefore the Macalpin Laws might not have been preserv'd they being the foundations of the Rights and Successions of our Kings And therefore as they were preserv'd with more care by us they should have been attack'd with less zeal by the Doctor for his Monarch's sake whose partiality I tax in this and not his disloyalty And to conclude this period in opposition to the Doctor I do think that the most fundamental of all Laws were in all Nations preserv'd by mere Tradition and are not written to this very day save when some accident forces it as in our late Statute for the Succession Which Position since able Lawyers must acknowledge I do not contend for it with a Divine who seems here to be out of his sphere and more dogmatical than his Profession will well allow But why may not our Laws be as old as about 800 years since Selden and Church-hill tells us that there are Laws yet extant in London older than any the Romans had And the Doctor 's Raillery that probably these Laws were in another Chest at Icolmekill with the MSS. which Boeth says Fergus brought from the sacking of Rome in the time of Alaric to be contemn'd for as great Criticks as the Doctor believe this to be true as one may see by Morhosius's learn'd Book de Patavinitate Livianâ From this received Principle also I conclude justly that since Lycurgus's Laws and the old Laws of other Nations have been preserv'd most of them without writing and by mere Tradition why may not the same Tradition be trusted for the Names and for some general and probable actions of our Kings for 130 years viz. from Rheuda to Fergus the First or why might not our Monasteries have received these Traditions from such as lived nearer these times than Gildas did to the first planting of Christianity in Britain And yet his and other Ecclesiastick Traditions are generally receiv'd and acknowledg'd and founded on by our severe Doctor and Churchmen ought to be tender of them because without these Fanaticks and Sectarians might press them very much Another ground whereby I endeavoured to render it probable that there were such Warrants as these declar'd to have been seen by our Historians was that what they declar'd was probable and ordinary for our Countrey and other Northern Countries as Ireland and Domestick Historians call'd Sanachies and Bards who as Poets preserv'd their Histories This Varaeus observes in Ireland and Powell in Wales Bardi custodiebant etiam Nobilium insignia Genealogias And in these were probably the memory of the Names of our Kings and their considerable Actions preserv'd Nor can it be imagin'd that a Family can rise without getting their Lands from some Kings nor could they have done considerable Actions except in their service and so in remembring their own Genealogies and Actions could not omit to record those of their Kings And Livie in the place cited tells us that the Histories of Private Families were us'd as the Warrants of the General History and those Luddus does cry up as the Warrants he us'd Nor does Buchanan decry them except in opposition to Luddus his using them as proofs of these positions onely that are inconsistent with the Roman Contemporary and other Histories And in so far I acknowledge they ought not to be received but that cannot be alledged against us I urg'd also that it was very probable that we had ancient Written Histories because we had the Druids amongst us who were Priests under Paganism and they are acknowledged by Caesar to have had the use of Letters And though Caesar does observe that they were averse from consigning to Letters the Mysteries of their Religion yet it does not follow that therefore they us'd them not in preserving the memory of their Kings and memorable Actions The one proceeded from a design to keep their Mysteries from being subjected to an examination which they knew these Principles could not bear and to conciliate a veneration to their Religion from the ignorance of the Admirers as Varaeus also confesses But without the other Letters had been altogether useless for in what could they have employed them if not in this And since Caesar is positive that they us'd the Graecian Letters in privatis publicisque rationibus what can be meant by publicae rationes save their Historical account of things And this seems the more probable that many of our Towns and Ports especially have Greek names And to the Doctor 's difficulty how the Druids could have preserv'd their Chronology in these Ancient Times I answer from Pliny who tells that they numbred time by the course of the Moon and not of the Sun which proves that very anciently they used Chronology Nor does it follow that because some of the Druids are said to have oppos'd the conversion of their People to Christianity therefore others of them were not zealous for their conversion even as though the Ancient Philosophers were generally severe Opposers of the settlement of Christianity yet many of them when converted were eminent Lights in their time And therefore I may conclude that since it is very probable that our Predecessours would be curious to preserve the Names of their first Kings and the way of their first settlement and since they had Letters wherein these might have been preserved therefore it is probable that they were accordingly preserved And that these Traditions and Records as well as the Histories of Private Families relating these were consigned to the custody of the Monasteries with us as elsewhere So that since four or five Worthy Historians declare They saw these each a-part their Testimonies concurring in a probable matter of fact must be as sufficient as if the Warrants were yet extant for since these would prove and satisfy in a Legal Trial much more ought they to be allowed in an Historical one quod erat probandum CHAP. IV. Our Authours vindicated in the accounts they give of the Genealogy of our Kings THE Doctor being convinced from these undeniable Proofs that neither Fordon nor Boethius did forge the ancient Genealogy of our Kings which the Bishop of St. Asaph did positively assert but that they had Warrants and Authorities before their times He falls upon a new device and contends that Boethius did insert many things contrary to the account of the Genealogy preceding him For as to the particular Genealogy from Fergus the First to Fergus the Second he hath no account of this from Fordon who hath as the Doctor says professed that he could find nothing particular concerning them though he cites several Chronicles and though Fordon mentions an old High Land Gentleman a Genealogist who gives an account of the
first Line betwixt the two Ferguses yet the Genealogy by him given differs from that which is owned by Boeth and Buchanan both in the number and in the names of our Kings And this is alledged to have been done of purpose to put in Regents not owned by the Genealogists and to support the Law of incapacity and that he might get mention made of Reutha Galdus Caratacus and Donald And the Genealogist thus having extended the first Line doth as much shorten the second Line betwixt Fergus the Second and Alexander the Third whereof the Doctor endeavours to give particular Instances So that the Modern Historians had added more Kings in the Race from Fergus the Second to Alexander the Third than are contained in the Genealogy betwixt Fergus the First and Fergus the Second And upon the matter the Genealogist hath made no more Kings in both Races than the Historians make in the last Race from Fergus the Second And therefore the Doctor is as culpable in shortning the Royal Line as the Bishop of St. Asaph He adds also that Fordon mentions another Genealogy of St. David made at the time of his death which ought not to be attributed to Baldredus but to Cardinal Walter Wardlaw which exactly agrees with that of the Highlander except in the spelling of some few names from Fergus the second upwards to Fergus the first But the latter part of the Genealogy from St. David to Fergus the second being corrupted before Fordon's time he would not have it stand in Record against his History but cut it off with an c. from David to Fergus which Caution he forgot when he did specially insert the Highlander's Genealogy from Alexander the third to Fergus the second This is the meaning as near as I can understand of the Doctor 's words being in themselves somewhat perplexed But the Doctor takes notice of a third Genealogy in Fordon which supplies in some measure the defects of that of King David and it is the Succession of Kenneth the first Monarch of Scotland and there he takes notice of the difference betwixt the Genealogy and our Historians For he acknowledgeth that he doth agree with the Highland Genealogy except that it hath Dongare the Son of Donald Braick which the Highlander doth omit and makes onely ten Kings betwixt Fergus and Kenneth whereas our Historians make twenty eight In Answer to this objection I shall follow the method of the Highland Genealogist which proceeds ascending from Alexander the third and the Nature of the objection it self which insists most upon the difference in the Genealogist from our Historians as to the second Line there being no objection made as to the first except as to some small difference in the names and the onely considerable difference is betwixt Finnanus and Caratacus which will easily be cleared in answer to the objection against the second Line And though the Race and Line be the same with Fergus downwards yet with the Doctor we shall make an Imaginary distinction of first and second Race And first as I applaud the Doctor who hath better thoughts of Fordon than the Bishop had who asserted him to have dreamed the History of our Kings that he was so cautious as not to set down the accounts that were imparted to him otherwise than in his sleep because he could not give a full account of them so I must likewise vindicate Boeth who in his History hath neither differed from nor contradicted Fordon nor any other of these mentioned Genealogies For as to Fordon though he gives not a particular account of the Names times and Actions of all the Kings betwixt the Ferguses yet he doth not profess that he could find nothing in particular concerning them as appears by the words cited by the Doctor himself Sed horum Sigillatim distinguere tempora principatuum ad praesens omittimus nam ad plenum scripta non reperimus For here he tells the full number of our Kings and five more which may be true by taking in of Fergus's Father and Grand-father and some other three Collaterals omitted by other Historians and that they reigned in the Isle and not in Ireland Onely he forbears at present to distinguish the time of their Reigns not having then gotten a full account of them which he seems thereby to insinuate he expected before he finished his Book wherein he was prevented by death But as he left Materials for the last and great part of his Book so he might have increased the first part of his Book in distinguishing these particular Reigns But it is likely these Authours he cites viz. Legenda Brendani Congalli Grossum caput and the several Chronica had nothing concerning these Kings or that Fordon himself had found nothing particular concerning them when he knew so well their Genealogy both upon the occasion of the death of St. David and the Coronation of King Alexander And as he gives the account of the most considerable Persons as Fergus Reuther Eugenius so he distinguisheth their times and tells how long the whole Kings reigned and gives Disticks containing the Periods of their Reigns Albion in terris Rex primus germine Scotus Illorum turmis rubri tulit arma Leonis Fergusius fulvo Ferchard rugientis in arvo Christum trecentis tricenis praefuit annis And in the place cited by the Doctor he asserts that the forty five Kings were ejusdem generis gentis and Fergus's return is set down Ad natale solum properat relevare jacentes Rex fessos regni cespite sospes adit Intrepidus propria pandens vexilla Leonis Terruit occursu quem fera nulla ferox Ocyus advenit fuerat quae turbine diro Subdita plebs X quater tribus haec Congaudens patrio Regi servire parata Ad libertatem quicquid in orbe volat And again Fergusius universas Regni regiones cis citraque vadum Scoticum à patribus ab antiquo possessas de muro lapideo viz. Inchgaell ad Insulas Orcadas sub sua composuit ditione Doth the Doctor think that this was to profess that he could find nothing concerning them and that after him Boeth could make no distinct and particular account of that Succession unless he feigned them for some partial end But to come to the Highland Genealogist there is no difference betwixt him and our Historians for though his number be fewer than that in our Records and Histories yet the reason is because our Historians mention all that did Reign whether by Right or by Usurpation or whether in the Direct or Collateral Line the Genealogist doth ascend from Alexander the Third from Son to Father in the direct Line considering that Line onely whereof that King was descended amongst whom some were never Kings The Genealogist begins Alexander the Son of Alexander the Son of William the Son of Henry the Son of David Here the Doctor objects that Malcolm the Fourth the Maiden mentioned by our
how small Authority this Poem or Catalogue should be for Achaius and Gregory are two of the most considerable and uncontroverted of all our Kings in these Periods For Achaius did make the League with Charlemain and is mentioned in many Histories beside ours And Gregory lived after the time of Kenneth the Second and is Sirnamed the Great because of the Victory over the Britains Irish and Saxons and this is acknowledged and is cited as such in the famous debate betwixt us and the English before the Pope Selvachus also is acknowledged by the Chronicle of Mailross But the secret and true Reason of this suggestion is that he might obviate the objection from the difference of the number and suppress Achaius because they will have the League not to be made with him but with the Irish and Gregory because he invaded Ireland O! How witty are these Contrivances To Eugenius succeeded Fergus the Third who began his reign Anno 764. By the Chronicle to Hed succeeded Fergus his Son Anno 777. By the Catalogue Aidus fin the First corrupted Ethfinn succeeded to Achaius the Fourth his Father Anno 748. whereas truly Achaius was not Father to Etfin but Etfin was Father to Achaius According to the Catalogue there are nine Kings without any special Chronology from 778 to 838 viz. Our Kings from Fergus 3 to Kenneth 2 are by our Histories According to the Chronicle of Mailross Donall III. Solvathius Selvand Conall III. Achaius Eokall Conall IV. Congallus Dungall Constantine I. Dongallus Alpine the Son of Eokall which shews that Eokall was Achaius and then Aeneas Alpinus and then Kined Son to Alpin Aidus II. Kenneth II.  Eugemanus Aeneas Son   Achaius fifth Son of Aidus   Alpine the Son of Achaius and then Kenneth Alpine's Son   Here are many Kings of whom the Nation where they are said to have Reigned in a very late and uncontroverted time know nothing and in which the Irish not onely differ from us but also from the Chronicle of Mailross which seems to have been written by some English Borderers who though they have somewhat carelesly observed what was doing among us yet because of their Neighbourhood and Commerce have understood the same better than the Irish. It 's likewise observable that by Collationing that Period of the Genealogy of our Kings from Fergus 2 to Malcolm 3 the Irish Catalogue in Ogygia allows from the 503 to the 1057 being 554 years for 51 Kings which is very short whereas we allow from the 404 to 1057 being 653 years for 46 Kings which is far more probable in it self and more agreeable to the Doctor 's observation who allows twenty five years to a Generation according to the most received opinion whereas this Calculation allows onely ten years and about ten Months to every King even in those ancient times when Men lived long And whereas it is still objected against Hector Boethius that he augmented the number of our Kings by inserting Collaterals to support the Law of incapacity and to make the long account of time seem probable It 's answered that this objection is fully satisfied both by the Authority of the Chronicle of Mailross and this Irish Catalogue which insert Collaterals as well as those of the direct Line And if all these Kings named by them had been in the direct Line that great number of fifty two joyned with the Collaterals had made the number of our Kings in that Period to have come near to an hundred and thus each King to have had about six years allow'd him I had not fully considered the Irish Genealogies when I insisted upon that Argument from Carbre Lifachair and now I acknowledge that my own Argument from that Book was of no moment and to shew my ingenuity I pass from it But the reason why I said then that there might be a hundred years allowed for a Man's Life is because the Civil Law allows so much and a Man is never presumed to be dead till it is proved he lived an hundred years but I confess the Doctor 's Calculation from Censorinus of what makes a Generation holds ordinarily true and is to be preferred in the accounts of Genealogy My fifth Argument against the Irish Genealogy is That it differs not onely from ours and from that account in the Abbacy of Mailross but from all the French Historians and our ancient Records yet extant by which it is clear that our King Achaius entred in League with the French King Charlemain whereas the exact Offlahartie makes onely this French League to have been entred into with Charles the Sixth in the Year 1380 which fell in the time of King Robert the Second and adds that this League was made by Robert Stewart Lord d'Aubigny in which he confounds two known Stories that he may contradict Wardaeus his Countreyman for it is indeed true that the ancient League was renewed with King Robert the First of the Stewarts Anno 1380 the Original whereof is yet extant in our Records and whereof the Copy is in Fordon But this League was treated by Cardinal Wardlaw for us and the Count d'Bryan for the French and the same League was again renewed Anno 1425 by Iohn Lord Darnly Constable of France for the French and Wardaeus makes this last Treaty to be the first that was made betwixt our Kings and the French and Offlahartie not to contradict him has joyned the Persons who treated the one League with the time wherein the other was treated But that there was a League betwixt our Achaius and Charlmaigne or at least long before the Year 1380 is most uncontravertable for these Reasons 1. The French Historians acknowledge that this League was betwixt Achaius and Charlemain and I have proved by Eguinard Secretary to the said Charlemain that there was great Correspondence betwixt them and that he esteemed very much the King of Scotland As also I have proved from Italian Authours that there were Families descended of our Scotland setled in Italy who came over with William Brother to the said Achaius 2. Not onely does Chambers of Ormond who lived then in France set down the Articles of that Treaty and the several times it was renewed but Fordon does expresly insert the League that was betwixt Robert the Second first of the Stewarts and the King of France Wherein the King of France acknowledges even at that time the old Confederacies and Leagues à longo tempore inter Praedecessores nostros Reges firmatae connexae and the King of Scotland on the other part expresses Confoederatio inter illustres Reges Franciae avum nostrum this was Robert the Bruce and adds Et ab olim facta diutius observata And to instruct this part of Fordon's Story as well as the League it self we have the Original League with King Robert the First yet extant and Iohn Baliol then pretended King of Scotland refused to joyn with Edward of
in Ulster is call'd Dalaradia and Dalriadia and the Inhabitants Dalaradii And this King Araidh was also after Conar For he began to reign Anno 240. And as it was more honourable to have a Countrey called after Reuda a Scotish King than from Araidh who was but a King of Ulster and so one of the Kings of a Province in Ireland so it is yet more dishonourable to have our glorious Monarch who now Reigns descended from Carbre Ried who was but a Dynastie in this Provincial Kingdom of Ulster and so a Subject each Provincial Kingdom having five Dynasties as O-Flahertie tells us And from all this I leave to my Readers to judge whether Dr. Stillingfleet and his Authours doe the King greater Honour in making him to be descended from a petty Subject or our Historians who make him still to be descended from absolute Monarchs I cannot here omit to laugh at good O-Flahertie for asserting that our Kings even till the 590 were but Dynasties Tributaries and Subjects to the Kings of Ireland and that Aidanus got an Exemption from paying Tribute at the Parliament of Dromcheat where he appeared And the Doctor does great Honour to our King in following such Authours and rather to follow them than the venerable Beda The Bishop of St. Asaph has a different derivation of Dalrieda from all the former Authours for he brought it from Râ— which signifies King in the Irish and Eda the King's name so that Eda was a different King and Authour of this Appellation from Rheuda Carbre Ried Echoid Ried or Araidh And are our Histories to be overturn'd by such irreconcilable Authours The fourth step of this Conjecture is in the Agreement of our History with the Irish in the Persons of Eric Eochoid Mainreamhere Oengus Fear the Father Grandfather and Great Grandfather of our Fergus the Second though there be a difference in the rest of the Line from Carbre to Fergus our Historians making this Line to consist of thirteen Persons and theirs of ten But against this last Period it is represented That the small Agreement in this step as to the Names of Father and Grandfather of Fergus with their residence in Ireland the Grandfather having been expell'd from Scotland and fled to Ireland when King Eugenius was killed by the Romans under Maximus gave a Rise to some unexact Irish Writers to imagine that the return of this Fergus the Second from Ireland after forty four years absence was our first Settlement in Britain But the want of three in this Period of thirteen in a direct Line does much over-balance the small Probability that is urged against us from the Agreement in two Names and some resemblance in other two viz. in Carbre Ried and Eochoid Ried and Aenegusa Tich and Angus Fear It is also very observable that this Irish Genealogy allows 283 years to these ten viz. from the death of Conar Carbre's Father who dyed Anno 220 Arthur his Successour having begun his Reign that year to the Year 503 wherein Laorn eldest Brother to our Fergus the Second as they say began his Reign and yet to fifty one Kings from that Laorn to Malcolm the Third they allow onely 554 years And from the reflexion it is also more probable that there were thirteen in this Period and that Conar began to reign in the Year 149 and Fergus the Second in the Year 404 as our Historians assert To all these I add the irreconcilable differences amongst the Irish Authours as to the first Founder of our Monarchy and the time wherein it was founded as also the irreconcilable Consequences following thereupon wherein our three great Adversaries Camden Usher and Bishop of St. Asaph did so widely differ as I have fully prov'd in my first Book without any Answer and by which Contradictions Dr. Stillingfleet himself is so misted that he cannot determine whether we setled in the fourth fifth sixth or seventh Centuries professing that in matters of so great obscurity he could determine nothing My last Argument to prove that our Histories cannot be overturn'd by the Irish shall be from comparing the Warrants of both But before I enter upon this I must again regret in this Book as I did in my last that the Irish should mistake so far their own Interest as to suffer or furnish theirs to overturn the Credibility of ours Since because we acknowledge our selves to have come last from Ireland it were our common Interest to unite together and to sustain one another's Antiquities as their Authours did before Bishop Usher who was of foreign Extraction For though they controverted some of our Saints and Monasteries because of the common name Scoti yet till then they never opposed our Antiquities knowing that in so far as we prov'd our Antiquity by Roman and foreign Authors which they had not the occasion to do they in so far were proved to be ancient which Stanihurst well observ'd as I did remark in my first Book And upon seeing the use that is made of Authours against us who are really for us as Beda and others we are apt to believe that theirs are not if we saw them and that the Irish rather omit our remote Antiquities than contradict them Nor would we have controverted the Authority of their Annals though some of the English had produc'd them against us if some of the Irish had not by ignorance or mistake concurr'd of late with them We likewise desire them to consider how our Adversaries and particularly Dr. Stillingfleet railly their Antiquities and Authours Ketin Wardoeus and O-Flahertie and yet seem which is severe to allow their Antiquities to the end they may encourage them to oppose us laying still foundations in the mean time to overturn theirs also when they have serv'd their turn which I now proceed to discover First The Milesian Race is accounted by the Irish their Fourth Race and yet this is controverted by Dr. Stillingfleet And the Authority and Learning of the Druids upon which the Irish do chiefly found the Authority of their Histories is absolutely denied as it also is that the Irish had use of Letters till after St. Patrick's time and all the Antiquity he does allow them is as to general things as from whence they were peopl'd and that they had successions of Kings time out of mind and does magnify the Tygerneck Annals for confessing that the Irish Antiquities till the Reign of Kimbacius their 73d King are very uncertain and he liv'd within 59 years of our Fergus And the Doctor adds that he might have gone farther and done no injury to Truth and at last brings down this Truth to Fergusius Fortamalius who liv'd Anno Mundi 3775. which is 134 years after our Fergus whereas we necessarily conclude the Irish to have a much greater Antiquity for there were many Descents made here from Ireland to prepare the settlement of Fergus and Ireland lying in the neighbourhood of Britain and Spain and describ'd by the
Ancientest Geographers and other Writers as inhabited and without any mention of Conquest it necessarily follows that they must have been Aborigines there And by the same reason they having been very ancient and wanting Wars must have eased themselves by Colonies And this Countrey being within 13 Miles of them our settlement must have been very ancient And so the one does necessarily infer the other and should not be made use of to contradict it and the English who have conquer'd them are interested to humble them but we to maintain them Albeit then it is our own Interest to support their Antiquities yet in as far as they are now produc'd to overturn what relates to our Countrey they are not to be preferr'd to ours as the Doctor asserts for who would maintain that the Accounts given by the Saxons Celtae or Spaniards should be preferr'd to the British or English or Irish Histories for the times after the Britains English or Irish were acknowledg'd to be setled And as to the Irish Writers themselves this Poem selected and preferr'd to all other Annals by O-Flahertie as not onely containing an acknowledgment of our settlement but a Genealogy of our Kings we have prov'd that it is not preferable to our Historians in point of Credibility And besides all that I have said of it I must add that O-Flahertie acknowledges that there were several different Copies of it and even this which he follow'd was not intire some Distichs being wanting else he doubted not to make an intire Catalogue And even this such as it is is onely written in Malcolm Canmore's time whom it mentions who reign'd in the 1057 of which lateness all the other Irish Annals allow'd by the Doctor are The main ground insisted on by the Doctor for preferring the Irish in the point of Credibility to us is that we neither had nor could have so ancient Annals as they our Monasteries being onely founded by St. David and after him and so â—osterior to their Annals Which Argument is founded upon a false Supposition for the Doctor himself acknowledges that the Psalter of Naran contains onely matters of Devotion as the Irish Antiquaries cited by him confess This is the eldest and was written in the latter end of the Eighth Century The next is the Psalter of Cashel which he rejects as not well founded and allows none as credible but those which are written after the Year of Christ 1000. And it cannot be deny'd but we might have had well-warranted Annals before that time which the Doctor denies For first We were then fully possess'd not onely of our own first part of Scotland but even of the Pictish part of it and also of the Northern now English Countries confirm'd to Malcolm the First by the English own acknowledgment who reign'd Anno Christi 943. And so we were Masters of Icolmkill Abercorn Abernethie Mailross Lindisfern and other Monasteries which lay within that great extent and which extent Dr. Stillingfleet acknowledges since Severus's Wall is by him confess'd to be built betwixt Tine and Esk. We had also the number of our Bishopricks increased by the subduing of the Picts as is not onely probable in it self but is clear by the acknowledg'd Catalogues of Bishopricks in Fordon Icolmkill is by Beda said to be founded about the 560. and to be the chief of all the Monasteries in Britain or Ireland Abernethie was founded in Garnard's time who was next Pictish King to Brudeus in whose time Columba liv'd and so about the 600. And Fordon relates that this Monastery was founded 200 years before the Church of Dunkeld was founded And here is not onely a Monastery mention'd which might have had Annals higher than the Psalter of Naran suppose it had created History but he cites the Chronicle of Abernethie which the Doctor acknowledges to be an old Chronicle and Beda also acknowledges that there was such a Monastery as Abercorn And though the Doctor cites Buchanan saying that it was so demolish'd that no vestige of it did appear yet the Pictish Kingdom being quite ruin'd the Argument that there was no such Monastery is of no force for the Records of many demolish'd Monasteries are preserv'd And though the Abbacy of Mailross was rebuilt by St. David yet that it was a famous Monastery in Beda's time is clear for he tells that the Abbat of Mailross was translated to Lindisfern and has probably remained long demolish'd by the Wars as Abercorn did and the Writers did thereby express the rebuilding as an original foundation And the reason why I said in my former Book that this Abbacy was before it was rebuilt called Rivallis was because I have seen in a Collection of Foundations made by our Lord Register Skeen a Copy of the Foundation of Mailross wherein the Lands of Mailross and others are given to the Monks of Rivallis But whether Mailross or Rivallis are distinct or not is not material to our point and if they be distinct it is more for our advantage since by that Concession we have two Monasteries doted by St. David It contributes much to the preference of our Histories beyond the Irish in point of Credibility and to the establishment of the Credibility of our Histories against all our Adversaries that in the Debate before the Pope at Rome about the Year 1300. where the Roman Antiquities must certainly be best understood and when the Debate was against the Learn'd English who were very much concerned to contradict us we did own this our settlement before Iulius Caesar his entry into this Isle and that we as a setled Nation and not as a vagrant company of Irishes maintain'd that long series of Wars related by Beda and our own Historians And in that Debate we assert justly that the visible Ruines of the two Walls built by the Romans against us and the Picts are certain proofs of our Antiquity and that we were the People who maintain'd the War As also in a Letter from our Nobility to the Pope about the Year 1320. we again assert our Antiquity and that Haec collegimus ex Antiquorum gestis libris And all this Debate and Letter being yet extant these are surer Warrants for our Antiquity than any thing that can be urg'd against us from the Irish Annals the eldest whereof are in the Year 1100. written by Natives at home without any contradiction or warrant for ought we have yet seen Nor has the Learn'd Dr. Stillingfleet answered the same Objection when urged in my First Book though with less force than it is now urg'd Dr. Stillingfleet answers to all that is urg'd from the Antiquity of our Monasteries That this proves onely that we might have had but not that we had sufficient Warrants since we produce not the Annals of these Monasteries To which my Answer is that 1. This at least overturns his Position that We neither had nor could have sufficient Warrants for a greater Antiquity than the Irish.
late Book which is not to be put in balance with Beda who was disinterested and liv'd in the very time To which the Doctor answers that by Scotland must be there meant Ireland because the Nation which Egfrid invaded had been always kind to the English which cannot be said of our Scotland But to this it is replied that I have prov'd in my Book from the same Beda who must be the best Interpreter of his own words that the English at that time were very kindly entertained by the Scots and furnished with all things necessary which kindness proceeded from an Union in Religion which in those happy and pious days was the foundation of all kindness and thus I have answered the Doctor 's Argument but he has not answered mine But to prove that Scotland was called Ireland in those days and that this place of Beda's is applicable to our Country and not to Ireland I cite the English Polychronicon who says many evidences we have that this Scotland is ofttimes called Heght Hibernia as Ireland does for which he cites many Proofs and particularly this Passage in Beda If it is a common Saw that the Country which now is nam'd Scotland is an outstretching of the North part of Britain This Lond hete sometime Albania and hath that name of Albanactus afterwards the Lond hete Pictavia for the Picts reigned therein 1070 Years and at last hete Hibernia as Ireland hyght And thereafter it is said at the end of that Page many Evidences we have out of this Scotland that it is oft called and Hyte Hibernia as Ireland has and particularly amongst many Citations out of Beda he cites Egfridus King of Northumberland destroyed Ireland c. which is the Passage controverted This Polychronicon is cited by Fordon and was Prior to him for as Vossius tells us it was written by Ranulphus Higden who died Anno Christi 1363. and was translated by Iohannes Trevisa who continu'd it to the Year 1398. From which I draw these Conclusions 1. That this Country was called Scotland before the Year 1000. which overthrows the Bishop of St. Asaph's Assertion 2. That our Country was called Hibernia which answers most of all our Adversaries Arguments 3. That this place in Bede is to be ascrib'd to us notwithstanding Dr. Stillingfleet's reason and Offlahartie's History For proving likewise that Scotland was called Hibernia in Beda's time and by him I produced among many other Passages that very clear one Where he says that Aidan was sent from the Isle which is called Hy which is the chief of the Scotish and Pictish Monasteries and belongs to Britan Et ad jus Britanniae pertinet albeit speaking of Hy in other places he says it is in Hibernia To which the Doctor answers Doth not Beda in the same place say that the Island Hy was given by the Picts and not by the Scots to the Scotish Monks that came from Ireland But what a Paralogism is this For it might have been given by the Picts and yet have been within the Territories of the Scots for these neighbouring Nations did seise oft-times Places belonging to one another And the Picts being sensible that they were not able to keep this Place which was so remote from their own Territories they did therefore the more easily mortify it to a Monastery Nor could it otherwise have belong'd to the Picts for it was never pretended that the Pictish Dominions extended to our Western Isles or that they did reach farther than Clyd and Beda himself does march them so And the Shire of Argyle and many Isles such as Bute lie betwixt Clyd and Icolmkill or Hy and it was never question'd but that these belong'd to Us and were the Seat of Our Kings And Usher thinks that Beda was mistaken in saying that the Picts gave this Isle to this Monastery But 2. does this Answer prove that it belong'd to Ireland which is the onely Point here in debate Or can there be any thing more inconsistent with that than Beda's own words which are that it belong'd to Britain as a part of it And if it be a part of Britain it cannot be in Ireland otherwise than because Scotland which was a part of Britain was then called Ireland Nor does the situation of the Place contribute less to clear this than Beda's clear Authority For it was never pretended by the Irish that our Western Isles which lie upon our Coast belong'd to Ireland And the first thing that is known of them is that they belong'd to Scotland and since this Monastery and Isle is now in the possession of the Scots and has been so for many Ages We desire the Learned Doctor and his Irish Evidences to condescend when and by what War or Transaction the Irish lost that or the other Isles for if it had been theirs we could not have got it but by one of these two ways Since then Hy was a part of our Scotland it necessarily follows that Aidan came not from the Northern Scots in Ireland as Doctor Stillingfleet asserts for the Bishop of Saint Asaph acknowledges that Aidan was ordained at Hy by the Bishop of Hy and Dunkeld which he supposes with Usher to be then founded and cites Bede for his Voucher and adds that after Firian's death Colman succeeded in the Bishoprick who was also sent from Scotland that is from Hy and that he was a Bishop of Scotland which must be our Scotland for the reasons aforesaid notwithstanding of what the Doctor says And from all this we wonder with the Doctor that any that can carefully reade Beda can dispute what is so clearly said in him that Scotland was called Hibernia and so we 'll conclude against him in his own words But we wonder what the Doctor means when he acknowledges that from Beda it appears that the Scots had a Kingdom in Britain But when he speaks of the Religion of the same Scots he means the Scots of Ireland this is indeed beyond my understanding but I am sure it can have no colour from making the Ireland wherein Icolmkill or Hy is an Isle distinct from Britain having in my former Book cleared that our part of Scotland was called an Isle as contradistinguished from Britain by the two Firths Clyd and Forth being clos'd up by a Wall and is therefore called an Isle by Tacitus and others whom I formerly cited To whom I now add several English Authours as William of Malmsbury who speaking of Britain says per se velut insulam à Scotia divisa And Bartholomoeus Anglicus says that Scotia Regnum promontorium est montibus maris brachiis à Britannia separata Anglorum progenies Britanniam insulam possidet And therefore Beda speaking of Weremith in Northumberland he tells us that it is near to Scotland and adds that by this it may appear that the remotest part of the Isle of Britain towards the North is Northumberland Which could not
have been true if it had not been spoken upon the supposition that our Country had been an Island for our Country lies benorth Northumberland in the Isle of Britain All which are to be found in the Third Chapter of the Second Book of Fordon with several others which I here omit rather as unnecessary than impertinent I add to these Paulus Diaconus who speaking of Wars betwixt the Britains and Saxons from the time of Ambrosius Aurelianus says that the Victory hung uncertain betwixt them donec Saxones potentiores effecti tota per longum Insula potirentur And this must be onely understood of England for the Saxons did not in his time nor since conquer that part of Britain which belong'd to us But by that he onely meant that the Saxons conquer'd that part which belonged to the Romans and was called an Isle as contra-distinguished from ours I prov'd this also from the Martyrologium Romanum Abredonioe in Hibernia Sancti Beani Episcopi to which nothing is answered And I now add to it Baronius in not is Beani vetera manuscripta ex quibus Molanus hac die fuit hic Episcopus Abredonensis Having thus cleared the Antiquity of our Kings and the truth of our Histories by so solid Reasons and from so good Authority I hope the reverend Dr. Stillingfleet will be as Ingenuous in retracting what he has written against the State in these Points As he did very Commendably retract what he had written against the Government of his own Church in his Irenicum At least he will retract That insolent Expression Praef. pag. 72. That our Antiquities are universally dis-esteem'd amongst all Iudicious and inquisitive Men Since all men have not written their opinion nor has he read all Writers and this at least contradicts the many parts of his Book wherein he acknowledges that Lipsius and other great Criticks are of our side And I have cited most of all the considerable Criticks and have fully satisfied the insignificant Answers made by Dr. Stillingfleet to them and if I have left any Expression in all the Book unanswered it is because it was unworthy of having been urged by Dr. Stillingfleet or answered by me And though I could add many new Authours who have owned our Antiquities yet loving rather to reason than to cite I produce one who not onely owns our Antiquities but makes our Antiquities a strong Argument against the Supremacy of the Pope For says he the Bishop of Rome cannot pretend that the Church in Britain received the Christian Faith from Rome since Scotland a part of it was Christian before the Romans had access to it The Authour is the learned Lomeierus who tells us That the Britains had the knowledge of Letters 270 years before Christ for Dornadilla King of the Scots wrote before then the Laws of Hunting observed to this day amongst the Subjects of that Kingdom as Sacred even to this Age. And they were not amongst the last who received the Christian Religion for Tertul. advers Iud. cap. 7. tells that the places which were unaccessible to the Romans had yielded to Christ. And from this he concludes that they are Parasites who flatter the Bishop of Rome as universal Mo narch of the Church since here were Christians to whom the Romans had never access From which I also draw these Conclusions 1. Here is a Proof of our ancient Learning and consequently a Foundation for the Credibility of our Annals 2. Here is an acknowledgment of a King before Fergus the Second and long before the Year 503 proved too by Laws yet observ'd which was a sure way of preserving his Memory and the matter of Fact is true for we remember those Laws as his to this very day 3. Here is an acknowledgment that Tertullian's Citation is applicable to us 4. It seems by this more just that the Bishop of St. Asaph should rather have sustained our Antiquities as an Argument against Popery than rejected them for answering an Argument against Episcopacy Religion being of greater consequence than Government and the inference being stronger in the one Case than the other for he should have urg'd that it is not probable that we who were Enemies to the Roman Nation would have submitted to the Roman Church but would have rather lookt upon their Missionaries as Spies especially in those barbarous times when Nations were considered more than Doctrine for though Religion already received might have Cemented us yet before it was submitted to so great an enmity as was betwixt us might have obstructed Commerce and Kindness from which probably proceeded our aversion to the Romish Rites as to Easter and other Points for many Ages in which we followed the Greek Church in opposition to the Romish But leaving this Argument to be prosecuted by Dr. Stilling fleet it cannot be denied but both the learned Blondel cited by the Bishop of St. Asaph and Lomeierus were both convinced that our Antiquities were undeniable for no man in his Wits draws Arguments from Premisses which himself thinks uncertain Possevinus also the Jesuit in his Bibliotheca Selecta inserts among the Historians whom he recommends as most Authentick an account of our Antiquities Wherein among other things we are asserted to have had a Christian Church here in the Year 203. and the Citations from Tertullian and St. Ierom are appropriated to us and to these are added three other Citations agreeing with them one from St. Chrysostome in Serm. de Pentecost a second from the same Authour in his Homilia quòd Deus sit homo and a third from Petrus Venerabilis lib. 8. epist. 16. And therefore as in my last Book I did conclude that our Antiquity behoved to be very remarkable since before Bishop Usher's time every Nation made us most ancient next to themselves so in this Book I may conclude that our Christianity must be much ancienter than those reverend Divines would make even our settlement since men of all persuasions concur in it and speak of it with great Elogies and draw consequences from it for the honour of their own Church Which according to the Doctor 's principles cited by me are the surest marks of Conviction Thus I hope I have sufficiently illustrated this Subject and therefore I am not resolved any farther either to burthen it or my Readers For clearing some Passages in this Book the Reader may be pleased to consider seriously these following Additions and Alterations PAG. 3. lin 4. for Kenneth III. reade Kenneth II. Pag. 5. lin 10. Add to what I have said concerning Lese Majesty That Dr. Stillingfleet Praef. p. 5. calls this the sharpest and most unhandsome Reflexion in all my First Book and I am glad he does so for if there be any severity in these my words Luddus is to be blamed and not I for my words in my Letter to my Lord Chancellour p. 11. are and since Luddus owns that he durst not deny the British descent from Brutus
lest he might thereby wrong the Majesty of the English Nation I admire that any of the Subjects of Great Britain did not think it a degree of lese Majesty to injure and shorten the Royal Line of their Kings By which it may very easily appear that I did take the word Lese Majesty in a Rhetorical and not in a legal sense though I find that Dr. Stilling fleet does not answer my Objections even supposing the word to be there otherwise taken for it seems for ought that 's yet answered that to injure and shorten the Royal Line is a degree of lese Majesty that is to say it tends in Luddus's own words to wrong the Majesty of the British Monarchy Pag. 8. lin 10. Put out these words and this is clear also by the Book of Pasley Pag. 9. lin 17. Instead of these words that the People deposed Kings reade that the People sometimes de facto deposed Kings in those ancient barbarous times ibidem lin 23. Instead of these words till Kenneth the Third's time reade long after Fergus the Second's time Pag. 20. lin 19. For these words and the inquisitive Bede was not able to reach so far back in the year 700. reade that Bede made it not his business to search out secular Antiquities having onely design'd as is clear by his Book to write of us in so far as was necessary for his Ecclesiastical History which needed not the helps of the old Manuscripts in our Monasteries Ibid. l. 14. Put out the words ut fertur as they say a word used in the remotest Antiquity For farther clearing Pag. 22 23 24. Cap 2. Whether the Meatae and Caledonii were Britains distinct from the Scots and Picts whom Dion calls the Unconquered Nations and who the Doctor says were different from the Scots and Picts It 's fit to add to what I said on this subject that our Adversaries differ among themselves and contradict one another in this point for Cambden whom St. Asaph follows makes the Picts Caledonians or Extraprovincial Britains thinking it thereby more easie to make the settlement of one Nation late than to make both so because thus he differs less from received Histories But the Doctor sticks not to make the settlement of the Picts later than that of the Scots because he never finds the name of the Picts mentioned till about the time the Scots are and therefore refutes Cambden whereas Offlaharty rejects this reason contending as we do that it is ridiculous to say that a Nation is no older than from its being mentioned in History under such a name Pag. 29. lin 18. For c. 492. reade c. pag. 492. Pag. 32 lin 3. After the word Piracy add And whereas the Doctor objects that this Wall was unnecessarily built betwixt the two Seas to hinder the incursions of the Scots and Picts seeing I supposed the custome was to cross over the two Firths and to land on this side of the Wall for so they landed on the British side and left the Wall behind them and consequently the expence had been unnecessary and the Romans and Britains very idle in building it To this it is answered that I very justly supposed that the invasions were over the Firths and though they had left the Wall behind them after their landing yet the objection concludes not that therefore the building of the Wall was unnecessary for the Britains being separated and distinguished from the Scots and Picts by two Firths which did meet onely in a short neck of Land they completed this natural fortification of Water by building a Wall on the Land where it was wanting thereby defending themselves against the irruptions of their Enemies so that the Scots and Picts being debarred from entring by this Neck which was the easie and ordinary way before were after necessitated to invade by water formerly the more difficult way And this is not onely a conjecture arising from the clear probability of the thing which were sufficient to answer the Doctor 's Objection that is onely founded on a bare conjecture but it 's the express reason given by Beda who lived so near the time and the place and who speaking of this Wall saith Fecerunt autem eum inter duo freta vel sinus de quibus diximus maris per millia passum plurima ut ubi aquarum munitio deerat ibi praesidio valli fines suas ab hostium irruptione defenderent from which I must also add that the Seas we came over were our own Firths abovemention'd and not the Irish Sea for the Wall is said to be betwixt the two Firths and Bays of the Sea and thereafter in the same Chapter it's said fugavit eos transmaria which are also the words of Gildas All which is appliéd to our Firths and not applicable to the Irish Sea which can neither be called Firth nor Bay in the singular number nor Maria in the plural it being called Mare Hibernicum as our Seas are called Mare Germanicum or Deucaledonicum And that the Irish Sea was not passable nor fit for such Anniversary Invasions in Corroughs is beside all I have said formerly clear from the English Writers themselves Bartholomaeus Anglicus and the English Polychronicon in their descriptions of Ireland But the Sea that is between Britain and Ireland is all the year round full of great waves and uneasie so that men can seldom sail it securely This Sea is sixscore miles broad and Bartholomaeus Anglicus says of it Mare autem Hibernicum versus Britanniam undosum inquietum est toto anno vix navigabile The Doctor to evite the force of our Arguments makes the Caledonii and Meatae to differ from the Scots and Picts and to be Britains dwelling near the Wall who being forced to attend there for the defence of the Wall against the Romans left the more Northern parts of the Isle waste which they formerly inhabited as the Bloud doth the extremities when it runs to the Heart Whereupon the Scots invaded their Possessions from the West out of Ireland and the Picts from Scandanavia But besides the Arguments I urged formerly in my Second Chapter I now add that first Beda makes onely mention of five Nations who inhabited Britain viz. the Britains Romans Picts Scots and Saxons whereas if the Caledonii and Meatae had been different from the Scots and Picts and not the Highlanders and Lowlanders of the Scots and Picts under different names as I have formerly proved them to be then there had not onely been five but seven Nations inhabiting Britain Whereas the Doctor contends that Dion must interpret Beda's words it 's more reasonable that Beda who wrote long after Dion should interpret his words since Beda is so express in describing who were Inhabitants of old and in his time and Dion who was before Beda could not interpret him 2. Either the Scots and Picts came into the Possessions of these Caledonii and Meatae before the Romans or after