Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	brother_n	king_n	year_n	5,919	5	5.0531	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50442	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 ...	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.	1686 (1686)	Wing M150; ESTC R11636	78,633	233

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 R● 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

Collaterals viz. Ferchard the Second Son of Ferchard the First Malduine eldest Son to Donald Braik Eugenius the Sixth Ferchard's second Son Amberkelethus Findan's eldest Son Murdach his Son Eugenius the Eighth and Solvathius these four lineally descending from one another in the Collateral Line Fergus the Third eldest Son of Etfin and elder Brother to Achaius Ethas or Ethachi or whether Etfin or Ethafind But I cannot remark that the Genealogist calls Ethafind Son to Ethdre but he calls him Son to Ethachi or that the Genealogist calls Eugenius Ethac Indeed the Genealogist calls him Ethachi whom Fordon in the Genealogy of Kenneth calls Eugenius But these are idle remarks His Objection betwixt Fergus the Second and Eugenius the Fourth is that the Genealogist makes Dongall to succeed Fergus and leaves out Eugenius the Second very reasonable indeed because Eugenius the Second though eldest Son had no Succession and to Dongard Cobren succeeds and to him Aydan the Father of Eugenius And there are left out from amongst our Kings mentioned by our Historians Constantine the First whom the Doctor calls Constantius because he was Dongard's younger Brother and Congallus Dongard's eldest Son because he did not continue the Line his Line being extinct after the Death of Eugenius the Third Convallus and Kinnatell his three Sons and Kenneth the first Son to Convallus his Grand-child But the Doctor makes no mention of Kenneth but in place of him saith that Conranus is omitted by the Genealogist as if Conranus and Cobrenus might not pass for one Against the first Race his Objections are much lighter and so I shall not be so special in giving Answer His noticing the difference of names is very pretty betwixt Arnidal and Dornadill Rowen and Rether not Nothatus as the Doctor mistakes for Nothatus being Dornadill's Brother a Collateral he is left by the Genealogist as such and Rutha for Reuda and Ther for Thereus and Rosine for Iosin and Corbre for Corbred and Daradiamore for Dardanus and that Corbre's Sirname of Galdus was forgot and Luthach for Lugtacus and Mogalama for Mogallus and Coner for Conarus Ethach for Ethodius and Fiachrach for Satrahell and Athirkin for Athirco Findachar for Findochus Thrinkline for Crathilinthus Fencormach for Fincormachus Romaich for Romachus and Enegussa which the Doctor acknowledgeth is plainly Angusianus though it be not so plain as many others of the rest he Quarrels Fethelmech for Fethelmachus and Engusafich and Etheat for Eugenius and Ethodius Erthus for Eirch And so to have named this Objection is to refute it being the difference onely betwixt a Latine Termination and a Vulgar betwixt a Highland and a Lowland And if he will take the pains to compare how these same Names are written in Fordon and how in Major he will find the like difference And if he will not rest satisfied he is referred to Flahertie in his Preface for a fuller Answer But Feritharis and King Donald the first Christian King and Nathalocus and other two Donalds are excluded by this ancient Genealogists and very reasonably because Feritharis was Brother to King Fergus the First and Donald because he was Brother to Satrael Nathalocus was an Usurper concerning whose Contingency of bloud our Historians generally make no mention all the Collaterals proved by Boeth Buchanan and Lesly And the Doctor himself in his Preface acknowledgeth that Nathalocus and Donald were Usurpers and so could not be mentioned in the Genealogy of the right Line Donald the Third called of the Isles an Usurper and Donald the Second Brother to Findoch And what though the Genealogist by mistake hath called Rosin the Son of Ther when he was his Brother and Ethodius the Son of Eugenius when he was his Brother If the Genealogist had mentioned all our Kings that did Reign and had called the next always Son to the former King he had committed this Errour oftner And it hath not been Fordon's ignorance for he tells that Ethodius was Brother to Eugenius But the Doctor says After this you find a greater difference for instead of Finnanus Durstus Evenus Gillus Evenus the Second Ederus Evenus the Third Metellanus Caratacus we find there onely Dethach Iau Aljelah Even Ederskeoli Comermore It seems the Doctor hath taken this at second hand for if he had looked either the Genealogy of King Alexander or King David he would have found Fin which is the same with Finnanus But the Doctor might have known that such a small difference in names and numbers doth not overthrow the verity of a Genealogy from his Friend Flahertie in his Epistle to Io. Linceus who takes the name of Lucius Gratianus in Cambr. evers as in the Genealogy of the Scripture Cainan is interposed betwixt Arphaxad and Sala who tells that such like Errours may proceed from one Person 's having two names or by taking a Brother for a Father or the like mistake of the Writer where the Line may be a little lengthned or shortned the Tract of it remaining the same But here besides the difference of Highland and Lowland Language wherein Alexander is called Alaster and Archibald Gillespie Gillus was a Bastard Usurper and Evenus a Collateral to Durstus as appears by our Historians Boeth Buchanan and Lesly As to the Genealogy of St. David it is subjoyn'd immediately to Baldredus his Lamentation about him and whether it be his or Cardinal Wardlaw's it furnisheth still another ancient and more credible Authour a Cardinal But perhaps he was not Cardinal when he told Fordon the Genealogy but thereafter and the Transcriber of the Scotichronicon hath given him his most honourable Name And though he died in Robert the First of the Stuart's time yet he was Archidiaconus of Lothian and Secretary to King David the Bruce as appears by the Scotichronicon And Fordon saith of the account from him Dudum acceperat and prefixeth a Preface in which he asserts that St. David was descended from a Glorious and ancient Race of Kings who had preserv'd their Kingdom free from Slavery longer than any other Race of Kings had done and had resisted or expelled all such Enemies as had invaded them Post Britones Dacos Pictos Anglósque repulsos Viriliter Scoti jus tenuere suum Et Romanorum spreverunt vim validorum Exemplo quorum pensarunt praeterit rum Inclyta Scotorum proles laudem genitorum This doth not agree with the Doctor 's Origin of us after the Saxons and our dependence upon them This Wardlaw Bishop of Glasgow is design'd in Scotichronicon Cardinal of Scotland and Ireland and the account and Verses appear to be far ancienter than either Wardlaw or Fordon otherwise Fordon had hardly ever cited the Relation of one Contemporary with himself and of one who was perhaps a younger man And as to the Pretence that the passing from the first Line before Fergus the Second will cut off the Pretence of establishing the Regents and incapacitating the Sons of Kings being Minors This appears evidently to be false For