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
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
a History yet the whole History for that must not be rejected else no English Historian should be believed more than ours we seeing in our own Age matters of Fact especially relating to our own Countrey very much mis-represented to say no worse at this time And I desire to know what Warrant Luddus ou first Adversary had for asserting the descent from Brutus and for his promising to prove it and yet this Authour passes for a great Critick and Camden states the debate betwixt Buchanan and him as the debate betwixt a great Antiquary and a great Poet Well decided indeed and this is a great proof of Camden's being an impartial Antiquary and since most of the old English Historians who wrote their general History tell of this descent from Brutus we may controvert in the same way the truth even of their latter Histories because they are founded on their old Histories which assert Brutus and so contradict the whole Tract of the Roman story as ours do not 3. The Bishop and the Doctor do both wrong us very much in observing that all our Neighbour Nations have thrown out the old and fabulous beginnings of their History but that we still retain our ancient Fables for any man that reads our History will see that most of our Historians have omitted the old Irish Fables of Gathelus and Scota and all that long line from Iaphet to Fergus the first narrated lately again by Ogygia and much used by our reverend Critick Dr. Stillingfleet in this answer against us It is acknowledged by the Doctor himself that Boethius and Ioannes Major do very ingenuously pass from many later things because they smell of that fabulous age but the Doctor does charitably make these to be the effects not of sincerity but of Craft so nothing can stand in Judgment before such Criticks The first thing I say then for our Historians is that what they say from Rheuda's time is not onely made probable but is undeniably proved by Beda and Eumenius who do clear that we were here before Iulius Caesar's time and if we were certainly we had Kings nor did the Genius of our Nation ever encline to a Common-wealth as others have done Rheuda is made a Scotish King by Beda Galgacus by Tacitus Donald by Baronius and the Ecclesiastick Historians and all this before the Year 300. From Rheuda then to Fergus the first are but by our Computation 130 years and to what purpose should so many honest men have conspired and a whole Nation have concurred so zealously to maintain a Lye so little usefull as the lengthning our Antiquity for so short a time as 130 years And though there were nothing for it but Oral Tradition why might it not be received for so short a Period and since a Father might have told this to his Son in an age wherein men lived so long and especially as to the descent of a Nation and the race of Kings of which men are very carefull to fortifie which I adduced Livius saying Per ea tempora rarae literae fuere una custodia fldelis memoriae rerum gestarum quod etiamsi quae in commentariis Pontificum aliisque publicis privatisque erant monumentis incensâ urbe pleraeque periere But because there is a debate betwixt the Doctor and me concerning the Translation of these words I urge from common Sense that Oral Tradition was to be Livius's best Authority in the beginning of his History and in many things afterwards for though after several years the Romans were exact in preserving their History by keeping publick and distinct Records which the Doctor does needlesly prove since it was never controverted yet certainly in those things which he narrated before the building of Rome he could have no Warrant but Tradition 2. After the building of Rome it 's not to be imagin'd that a Nation onely given to Wars would for many years fall upon the exact keeping of Records 3. These Records might possibly bear the names of Magistrates which is all that is proved and in a Monarchy could have been preserved without these as to their Kings For I will undertake there are few here but know who reigned these 130 years by-past among us though they can neither read nor write And though private Magistrates might be forgot yet hardly Kings and very memorable actions could be so and I dare say that in our own and in most of the considerable Families like ours not onely the Succession but the chief Accidents which befell the Family are remembred for two or three hundred years by many hundreds in the Family though there be no written History of such Families so far does interest and affection prompt and help Memory and Tradition to supply Letters 4. Though these Records might have preserved names of Magistrates and Treaties with the conditions thereof yet what were the occasions of War the considerable exploits and Strategemes done in them and many other such matters of Fact could onely be preserved by Tradition for these were never Recorded in any Nation and could have no Warrant save Oral Tradition without mentioning the Harangues and such like Historical matters so that Livie as well as Boethius must have wanted flesh to fill Nerves to support it and colour to adorn this History 5. Since the City and most of these Records were burnt we have as great reason to doubt of their History as of Ours for albeit we cannot now produce the warrants of them after Vastations as remarkable as their burning was yet we have others who say they saw such Books even as Dionysius Halicarnassius cites Antiochus Syracusanus for whose History no more is said by the said Dionysius but that he took his History out of ancient and undoubted words and he is but one Authour who says so of himself whereas we have many Historians who say that they with their own eyes saw the Records out of which they took the things they have These things being premised I renew the Argument which I proposed in my first Book for proving the truth of our Histories Thus These Histories must be believed and are sufficiently instructed in which the Historians who writ them had sufficient Warrants for what they wrote and we have fiv◠or six Historians men of untainted Reputation who when they wrote their Histories declare that they wrote the same from Authentick Records and Warrants which being a matter of Fact is sufficiently proved from the Testimony of so many honest Witnesses who declared they saw good Warrants for what they wrote and if this be controverted what can be true in humane Affairs or why should we believe Livius Iosephus or others since the Authours which they cite are not now extant This is all the subject can allow and what the learned Bishop Pearson and Heylin think not onely sufficient but all that is possible to be done in such Cases the one proving by my Method and Arguments that St. Ignatius's Epistles are Genuine and
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
Historians is omitted and Henry placed for him But this was very reasonable for St. David had onely one Son Henry Earl of Northumberland who died before his Father and so was never King but left three Sons Malcolm the fourth who succeeded his Grand-father and was called Maiden he never married and he had for his Successour William his second Brother Grand-father to King Alexander in whom also the Race of that Brother failed And then from David Earl of Huntingtoun the third Brother by the Families of Bruce and Stuart the Royal Race is continued in a direct Line till King Iames the Seventh who now Reigns So then if the Genealogist had said that William was Son to his Brother Malcolm the Maiden and not Son to Henry his Father instead of agreeing with our Histories he had both contradicted them and common Sense and Reason The Doctor next complains that betwixt Malcolm Canmore and St. David four of our Kings are omitted and we say very justly for the same Reason for Donald the Seventh was Malcolm's Brother and Duncan his Bastard Son none of whom had right to Reign And though Malcolm had two elder Sons Edgar and Alexander the First who did successively Reign yet they having no Children of their own the Succession did devolve upon St. David the youngest Son The third Objection is that betwixt Duncan and Malcolm Canmore the Historians put Machaboeus whom the Genealogist omits and very reasonably for he was a Collateral by Dovada Second Daughter to Malcolm the Second and usurped the Succession before Malcolm Canmore who was Son of Duncan and was great Grand-child to Malcolm the Second by his eldest Daughter Beatrix whom the Genealogist inserts though she was never a Queen because by her the Succession was continued The Doctor 's fourth and main Objection is that betwixt Malcolm the Second and Kenneth the Son of Alpin the Genealogist inserts none whereas our Historians insert thirteen viz. Donald the Fifth Constantine Second Ethus Sirnamed Alipes Gregory the Great Donald the Sixth Constantine the Third Malcolm the First Indulphus Duffus Culenus Kenneth the Third Constantine the Fourth Grimus Here indeed I acknowledge the Doctor hath discovered an Errour but I think it must be of the Writer or at worst in the Highland Genealogist his Memory or Expressions And it is very happy that it hath fallen out in this place otherwise Fordon as well as Boeth might be suspected of partiality or that they inserted these Kings to serve their own ends For even the Doctor 's worthy Antiquaries Ubbo Emmius and Boxhornius who have deserved so well of him because they are most injuriously extravagant as to the Antiquity of our Kings do admit the truth of this Genealogy after Kenneth who subdued the Picts There are four indeed here omitted in the direct Line Constantine the second Son to Kenneth the Second Donald the Sixth Malcolm the First Kenneth the Third Malcolm the Second's Father Besides nine Collateral viz. Donald the fifth Brother to Kenneth the Second Ethus Alipes Constantine the Second's Brother Gregory Son to Dongallus Constantine the Third Son to Ethus Indulphus Constantine the Third his Son Duffus Malcolm the First his eldest Son Culenus Indulphus his Son Constantine the Fourth Culenus his Son and Grimus Duffus his Son who were all Collateral to Malcolm the Second I shall give a very probable account of the mistake of the Genealogist in this place We see that it is twice Kenneth and Malcolm Kenneth the Second and Malcolm the First and Kenneth the Third who was Father to Malcolm the Second The Transcriber hath thought he had transcribed the First Kenneth and Malcolm and Constantine and Donald that were betwixt them and so hath omitted them and proceeded to Kenneth the Third who was Father to Malcolm the Second As in reading or writing if two Lines begin with one word the Reader or Writer ordinarily omitteth one of the Lines by mistake And as this was no design in Fordon so it could not be ignorance for he describes particularly all those omitted Kings and there is also a particular Genealogy of them subjoyn'd to the end of Fordon's Book in the Genealogy of King Iames the Second And if any man make a History of persons and draw out a Summary of their Genealogy if there be any difference the Summary must be regulated by the History and not the History by the Summary The Doctor 's fifth Objection is that betwixt Alpin and Achaius the Historians put Convallus and Dongallus and very reasonably because Convallus was Fergus's third Son and Dongallus was Solvathius's Son and so Collateral to shew the exactness of our Historians as well in the Collateral as in the direct Line The degree of Proximity of every Person is proved by our Historians from Kenneth the Second till Fergus the Second The next Objection is the difference betwixt the Genealogist and our Historians from King Othabin Son of Aydan whom Fordon calls Ethodius bind and our Historians Eugenius a Grand difference indeed and Achaius the Second Son of Etfin who was Son of Eugenius the Seventh who was Son of Findan who was never King Son of Eugenius the Fifth Son of Dongard never King second Son to Donald Braik second Son to Eugenius bin For here there is both difference of Kings and many omitted It is true that here there is the like Errour committed in transcribing with the former for the Genealogist betwixt Eugenius the Seventh whom he calls Ethac and Donald Braik he omits Dongard Eugenius the Fifth and Fordon's Genealogy of Kenneth the Great to Fergus the Second mentions Dongard but omits Eugenius and Findan Which errour of the Writer seems to have proceeded because there are two of the name of Eugenius so near together that he thought when he wrote Eugenius he had written all that had preceded Eugenius the Seventh and did the more easily forget Dongard and Findan because they were not so well known as never having been Kings But the mistake cannot be interpreted to be a design seeing there is no advantage in it and it is in omitting and not in adding any that never were of the right Line and falls happily out where our Antiquity is not questioned by any but by Ubbo Emmius and Boxhornius For even Iocelin and St. Asaph do acknowledge the Scots to have been setled under Aydan mentioned by Beda as the Father of this Ethodius bind And the Doctor himself does settle this Scepticism concerning the Original of the Settlement of the Scots in Britain under Aydan in the beginning of the Seventh Century but is uncertain if or how much longer before that time And it could not be ignorance in Fordon who describes all the particular Reigns of these Kings And in the opinion of Boeth Findan is not omitted for he makes Eugenius the Seventh not to be Grand-child to Eugenius the Fifth by Findan but immediately Son to Eugenius the Fifth The rest of these intervening Kings were
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
if they came in before then the Scots and Picts must have come and setled here before the Year 412. because the Romans left this Isle altogether about that time without ever returning and consequently were setled here before the Year 503. which is the Bishop of St. Asaph's Position But if after the Romans left the Isle then it was not when the Caledonii and Meatae were necessitated to come for the defence of the Wall against the Romans which is Doctor Stillingfleet's Position If the Irish had overcome the Extraprovincial Britains whom as the Doctor confesses the Romans could not overcome this Conquest must needs have fallen out near to those times wherein Gildas and Beda lived and whereof they write the Wars and Vastations so particularly and exactly and especially since the Learned Doctor gives as a Rule that a negative testimony is concluding where the Writer is knowing and had opportunity to know and the thing omitted is of importance to the subject treated of all this quadrats exactly with this case and though these Authours had omitted this Conquest yet it is incredible that these Ancient Irish Annals by the Doctor alone so much preferred to ours would have omitted the full and clear relation of a Conquest so very glorious to them as the overcoming Nations who could never be conquered by the mighty power of the Romans especially since this must have been not some particular Victories onely but one intire extinction of the Meatae and Caledonii for these are never after so much as mentioned And it 's yet more incredible to think that we could have overthrown these Extraprovincial Britains after the Romans had been forced to leave the Island and yet never be able to prevail so far against them when they had the Britains Romans and Us to be their Enemies it being acknowledged that we were by continual incursions endeavouring to settle here about 200 years before the Romans left the Isle Whereas the Doctor cites Fordon distinguishing the Picts and Scots from the Caledonii and Meatae and making them to be the Extraprovincial Britains in the 36th Chapter of the Third Book of his Scoto-Chronicon I have considered the place cited but I find no such thing in that Chapter Indeed in the 37th Chapter of the Second Book I find Fulgentius is called Dux Britannorum Albanensium and that the Britanni Boreales are distinguished from the Britanni Australes but there is no mention made in that place of the Caledonii and Meatae nor does the division of South and North Britains make any thing against us but on the contrary it seems very clear by that Chapter that the Scots and Picts had been long setled in Scotland before the Romans left this Isle for it 's said there that the Scots and Picts having according to their accustomed manner over-run the Countrey notwithstanding the assistence given by the Romans to these Britains Fulgentius was forced to make a peace with them Pag. 36. lin 2. For Fourth Chapter reade Fifth Chapter And here add that by these words totam cum Scotus Iernam movit may be meant of our being forced to retreat or return to Ireland when we were expelled by Maximus which agrees with the time here describd by Claudian Pag. 36. lin 10. For this reade thus Pag. 38. lin 16. The Comma is before but should be after Usher And for do reade doth Pag. 41. I desire the Reader may be pleased to observe First That Offlahartie himself confesses that the words soli Britanni in Eumenius are understood to be in the Genitive as Scaliger and we contend and not in the Nominative as the Bishop and the Doctor alledge And here I would have the Doctor to mind that true Maxime of Law cited by himself a Witness which a man bringeth for himself ought to be admitted against him Secondly That the Bishop of St. Asaph makes use of Plantin's Edition in the Catalogue prefixt by him and in that Edition Eumenius's words are pointed as I have cited them Thirdly I wish the Reader to observe that in my First Book against the Bishop of St. Asaph Pag. 70. lin 8. the particle in Eumenius his words Natio adhuc rudis soli Britanni is printed it and so the force of the Argument is not understood which was that copulat diversa and so the Natio rudis could not be the same with soli Britanni but must needs have been of the Genitive Case and the words must have run Pictis Hibernis soli Britanni the Picts and Irish of the British Isle Pag. 45. For Britons reade Britains And here add that the words in Tacitus are Nobilissimi totius Britanniae which does not at all prove Galgacus his men to have been Britons but Britains and so this agrees very well with the Scots who were Caledonian Britains Pag. 41. lin 19. For Scotice primae reade Scoticae pruinae Pag. 51. lin 2. For Fourth Chapter reade Fifth Chapter Pag. 57. lin 17. Add And that he was sent to the Scots in Britain is clear Pag. 60. lin penult For Nomination reade Omination Pag. 65. lin 3. For the Conquered Nations reade relates to the Unconquered Nations Pag. 68. lin 10. Put a Comma after the word Mortal Pag. 72. lin 15. In place of a Nation before Constantius ' s time say a Nation setled here before Constantius ' s time Ibid. lin 22. add That these words in Scaliger Scoti sunt adhuc in Hibernia must be so interpreted as to consist with Scaliger's former Arguments for proving our early settlement here and therefore the sense must be That there are yet in Ireland some of these Ancient Scots or That the Nation from which the Albanian Scots are descended are yet in Ireland neither of which contradicts our ancient Settlement here Pag. 76. lin penult For these words Neither is Buxhornius special and has been misled by Usher reade And Buxhornius has been misled by Ubbo Emmius whom he cites and is later than Usher Pag. 77. lin 8. For Spartan reade Spartian Ibid. lin 12. For all that reade that which Pag. 81. lin 16. Add That the Doctor Pref. p. 23. is very unjust in saying that our Antiquities went not down with Iohn Major and that he gave little credit to the being of Fergus the First for it 's clear that he repeats onely the Story of Gathelus Scota and Simon Brek but is very positive in asserting the Story of Fergus the First and shews particularly that Beda did not contradict that part of our History but gives the true and reconciling distinction that Fergus laid the foundation of the Monarchy and Reuda or Rether enlarg'd it and reckons above 700 years betwixt the two Ferguses and relates the Genealogy of Alexander the Third as it was repeated by that Highland Gentleman at the Coronation Pag. 83. lin 13. For these words he could have no warrant but Tradition reade He could have no sufficient warrant without Tradition Pag. 94. lin penult Put out the