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 [Page 2] 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 Advocate, was not in duty oblig'd to answer a Book written by the Reverend and Learned Bishop of St. Asaph, to prove that King Fergus, and 44 posteriour Kings were merely fabulous and idle inventions, since that assertion did not onely give the lye flatly to two of our most just and learned Kings, but overturned the foundations on which they had built the duty and kind­ness of their Subjects: And since pre­cedency is one of the chief glories of the Crown, and that for this, not one­ly Kings, but Subjects fight and de­bate; how could I suffer this right and privilege of our Crown to be stoln from it by this Assertion; which did expresly subtract about 830 years from their antiquity; and, in consequence, lessen'd it by other 500? for we can produce no eviden­ces for these also, which may not be quarrel'd, if our Adversaries be al­low'd to reject what is here contro­verted; [Page 3] consequentially to which, Ubbo Emmius, magnified by the Doc­tor, has brought down their Anti­quity to Kenneth the Third: and since nothing can be answered to these grounds, which I may con­clude, because Dr. Stillingfleet has answered nothing to them, nor to the many reasons whereby I prov'd that Episcopacy was no otherways concerned in this debate, than in as far as it was made a pretext for the more secure opposing our Monar­chy: I admire how Dr. Stillingfleet could adventure to continue the de­bate, especially after a whole Parlia­ment of zealous Episcopal members, (and wherein there did sit 14 Bi­shops) had unanimously, after ma­ny of them had read, and all had heard of the Bishop's Book, thought of new again, this Antiquity a solid and necessary Basis for their Loy­alty.

All that the Doctor answers, is, That our Kings are still ancient by the Irish Race, and so were Kings in another place: But he should have consider'd, that the Conquest of an [Page 4] ancient Kingdom brings not to the Conquerour the antiquity of those he conquers; and our Kings succeed onely to the Irish by the Scotish Kings now controverted; and if he rejects ours for want of sufficient proofs, he must by a stronger con­sequence reject the proofs▪ that can be produced for them, and he does so indeed with much scorn and gay­ety; nor can he prove our Kings to be descended from Fergus the Se­cond, if he allow not my proofs for Fergus the First; nay, which is more, I have proved the descent of Fergus the Second, from the Irish, in their way, to be impossible, and all the Authours for this opinion to have contradicted one another: so that these two Loyal Divines toil much to prove their King to be, not onely not the most ancient, but one of the last Kings in Christendom; and are angry at me, though the King's Ad­vocate, for daring to say, that this was a king of lese Majesty: by which I meant onely then, a lessening and wronging of the Majesty of our com­mon Kings, though I qualified this [Page 5] Rhetorical expression, by adding, that I was sure the learned Bishop of St. Asaph had written this with a design rather to gratifie his Order, and Countrey, than Industriously to injure our Kings or us; and thus, in that matter, I have been gentler than my employment could well al­low, or my present treatment does require. The Doctor being resolv'd to found every thing upon his own authority, knowing of little other help, tells us, That such as are to write in matters of Antiquity, should be extraordinarily vers'd in the best Authours, and should have a deep judgment, able to compare them to­gether; and this being the Preface of his own Origines Britannicae, Praef. p. 3d. may be, I am afraid, so constru'd, as if he would have us take his own word for his being a most learned and judicious Antiquary and Cri­tick, for else he would not have un­dertaken this sublime and hard task; as also he tells us by the same art, that it was not every Advocate us'd to plead eloquently at the Bar, and who took citations at second-hand, [Page 6] who could manage so weighty mat­ters; making it thus great Insolen­cy in me to grapple with him in our own History, which, a Scotchman, and in the Latin Authours, which a Civilian should understand best of all others; for this debate requires little other learning beside these, and the reading of some few passages in others, which I have read in the Authours themselves with as great attention as the Doctor, without taking any of my Citations at second-hand, or u­sing them without considering first their full import, and remotest con­sequences, as several learned men here can prove, and will better and more convincingly appear from this debate it self; in which, beside the main positions, I hope to prove that either the Doctor has not understood so well, or at least has not used them so ingenuously as I have done.

To reflect somewhat on me, and much on our Historians, without contributing any thing else to the present debate, save what may arise from the weakning our credibility, the Doctor asserts that I should have [Page 7] in my answer to Buchanan's Ius Reg­ni, deny'd that any respect was due to arguments brought from our Hi­stories, to prove his Republican Prin­ciples, and I should have decry'd our Histories as fabulous, and invented merely to sustain those Principles.

To which my Answer is, that I should be glad to find Dr. Stil­lingfleet as firm a friend to the power and interest of Kings, as I have been, though I think he gives no great e­vidence of it, in urging unnecessari­ly all Buchanan's popular arguments, with the same exactness that those do who wish them to prevail; but none can-lessen the esteem of the Book here in question, without re­flecting upon the famous University of Oxford, whose testimony I have subjoyn'd to this, and which I think the next to that of a good Consci­ence.

But to the point: I must remem­ber our Readers, that Buchanan ha­ving urged against the absolute pow­er of our Kings, that they were li­mited by a contract betwixt King Fergus and the People; my Answers [Page 8] were, that first this Contract was de­ny'd, and a History may be true, though some points be foisted in up­on design, else few Histories are true; and this is Dr. Heylin's Doc­trine as well as mine. (2.) That Fordon, whom they call our first Hi­storian, now extant, did expresly say, that Fergus constituit se regem; and this is clear also by the Book of Pasley, and I have clear'd that it could not be otherways; and if Boethius, has onely copied Fordon, and Bucha­nan, Boethius (as our adversaries con­tend) they must be all regulated by Fordon's Loyalty. (3.) That if Boe­thius be urg'd against us; we must consider all he says, and if so, we will find that he derives the Monarchy from Gathelus, and he was King with­out contract, before Fergus, whose reign I assert not there, though I use it justly against such as object that Tradition as Argumentum ad ho­minem. (4.) These limitations being found inconsistent with the safety of King and People (as indeed all limitations are) they were re­peal'd by express Laws in the Reign [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] ow'd so much service to so worthy Praef. pag. 72. 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 Church­man, 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 [Page 12] 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.

NOW without either vanity or levity, or any distracting di­gressions, I must put the Reader in mind that in my Book I did onely Pag. 2. 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, [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 Dr. Stillingfl. praef. pag. 23. Ci­tation of Scaliger, concerning the Scotobrigantes, and in my Cap. 5. p. 285. 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 [Page 16] 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 in this Isle; that of the English, Britons, Scots, Picts and Latines; and then proceeds to tell that the Britons were the first Possessours, and possest the South [Page 17] parts; After which, came the Picts to the Northern parts, and the Scots under Reuda thereafter made a third Nation in that part belonging to the Picts, getting the Western part of Scotland, North from the Picts call­ed Dumbriton or Alcluith, and he in­culcates their fixing here by three several, but concurring Expressions. 1. Progressi ex Hiberniâ, they left Ireland. 2. Sedes vindicârunt in Britanniâ, they setled in Britain. 3. In Britanniâ, Britonibus & Pictis gentem tertiam addiderunt; they added a third Nation to the Britons and Picts, and that this was very an­cient, is clear; for he fixes them in Britain in that Chapter, wherein he treats de priscis Incolis: and ha­ving thus setled the Scots and Picts, in his first Chapter with the Britons, he proceeds in the second Chapter, to setle the fourth Nation, viz, the Latines or Romans, beginning with these words: But this Britain was un­known, and not entred upon by the Romans, till Julius Caesar's time. And having described the Wars be­twixt these three Nations and the [Page 18] Roman Emperours, in a due Grada­tion marking every period of time, through the Reign of their consecu­tive Emperours: and how at last the Romans had abandoned the Island, and Aetius the Roman Consul had re­fused the Petition of the miserable Britons, so often defeated by the Scots and Picts: He in the four­teenth Chapter relates, how the Bri­tons upon deep Consultation brought in the Saxons, and from thence con­tinues the Saxon History. The se­cond Argument I brought from Be­da, was from the 5th. cap. l. 1. Eccl. Hist. where he says, that Severus built a Wall to defend against the other unconquer'd Nations, and in the 12. cap. he tells that Britain was vexed by the Scots and Picts; two Over-Sea or Transmarine Nations: And thereafter, as if he had been a­fraid, that this word Transmarine might have been mistaken, he adds, That they were not called Transma­rine, because they lived and were setled out of Britain, but because they were separated from that part of Britain by the two Seas which [Page 19] did almost meet. And in this he agrees exactly with Tacitus, who in the life of Agricola says, that there being a Wall built betwixt these two Seas, the Roman Enemies were closed up as in an Isle.

To these Arguments the learned C. 5. p. 285. Doctor answers first that Beda, in the beginning of his History, doth set down the five Nations that inha­bited Britain, and so if the Scots and Picts be ancient, the Romans and Saxons must be ancient Inhabitants too in his Sense: for they are like­wise reckoned before the War with the Romans, his business being to give an account of the present In­habitants, and not merely of the ancient.

To which I reply, that this is a mere imposing upon the Reader: for Beda, when he names the five Nations, speaks of them in relation to the present Languages wherein God was praised within the Isle, but when he speaks of the old Inhabi­tants, he speaks onely of the Britons, Picts and Scots; and the reason why he sets not down the particular time [Page 20] wherein these fixed in the Isles, as he does when he speaks of the Ro­mans and Saxons, is because he knew the one but the other was so anci­ent, that the exact time of their first settlement was not known; for cer­tainly a Chronologue would not have omitted that if he had known it. For speaking of the Romans settle­ment, he condescends upon the par­ticular Year: But when he speaks of the settlement of the Scots and Picts, he onely saith [Ut fertur] as they say, a word which he could not have used here, had it not been in matters of the remotest antiquity. And if so, certainly they must be much more ancient than the 503. And the inquisitive Beda was not a­ble to reach so far back in the Year 700. wanting the helps of the old Manuscripts in our Monasteries, which onely could tell him the ex­act time, and so he was forced to rest in the general remark of our being fixed here time out of mind even before his own age which was so near to the 503. that his own Fa­ther might have told him precisely [Page 21] when we setled, if we had not set­led here till then.

The Doctor's second answer is, that Beda does not at all intimate that the Scots were in Britain before the Romans and Saxons. To which it is replyed, that Beda is a Chrono­logue, and is carefull of the Notati­on of time where he knows it: And therefore it seems still to me and has done so to such as understand well Chronology, as sure a demon­stration as that Science can allow, that the Scots being named as one of the three ancient Nations inha­biting this Isle, and their actions a­gainst the Britons and Romans, be­ing narrated before the Saxons are said to have entred, that there­fore their settlement must be the elder, though it be not said in ex­press terms, and if any account of Kings, or memorable actions, were set down by a Chronologue, without adding the years, these things be­hov'd to be considered ancient, ac­cording to the order wherein they are exprest; especially in this case, since the Bed. L. c. 14. defeat of the Britons by [Page 22] the Scots and Picts is made the cause of bringing in the Saxons; and the cause must necessarily precede the effect. In fortification of all which, we must mind, that this will agree better with the following Citations, which clear, that the Scots settled here before the year 404; at which time the Saxons entred, and that they were here before the Romans, is likewise clear: for after they are marked to be setled in this Isle, Verum eadem Britannia Roma­nis usque ad Cai­um Julium Cae­sarem incognita suit. Britain is said to be unknown to the Romans. And as the Romans are acknowledg­ed to have been here before the Sax­ons, and so to be set down by Beda before them; Why should not the Scots be likewise acknowledged to have been setled here before the Ro­mans, since their settlement is first mentioned?

The Doctor's third Answer is, L. 1. c. 5. That though Severus's Wall was acknowledged to be built against the unconquer'd Nations beyond it; yet it is not said, that the Scots and Picts were these unconquer'd Nati­ons, else the controversie had been ended: But on the contrary, Dion, [Page 23] by whom we may understand Beda's meaning, tells us, that these Nations were the Maeatae and Caledonii: To which it is reply'd, that Beda, in his first Chapter, mentions onely the Scots and Picts, as setled here with the Britons: in the second he brings in the Romans, and gives an account of their progress under Iulius Cae­sar: in the third under Claudius: in the fourth under Marcus Antoninus: in the fifth, under Severus, he men­tions the building of the Wall to se­cure the Roman Conquest against the unconquer'd Nations. After which, in the 12th, he recapitulates the War betwixt the Britons and Ro­mans, against these unconquer'd Na­tions, whom afterwards he still calls Scots and Picts. And again, he men­tions the Scots and Picts, as the one­ly invaders of this Wall, built against those Nations whom he called un­conquer'd, without speaking of the Maeatae or Caledonii: So that from Beda it is clear, that these uncon­quer'd Nations were the Scots and Picts; and therefore, by Dr. Stillingfleet's own confession, the [Page 24] controversie is at an end. And these Moeatoe and Caledonii were in effect the Scots and Picts, considered as Highlanders and Lowlanders: for Bochart Canaan, l. 1. 42. tells us, that Camdenus rectè deducit Galedo­nios à Britannico Caled, quod durum sonat; duri enim & asperi erant in­colae, & terra etiam tota horridis & confragosis montibus attollitur. Cale­doniis opponuntur Moeatoe, Camd. de Britannia Septentrionali, p. 3. Inco­loe ol [...]m in Myatas & Caledonios di­stincti erant, id est, in campestres & montanos. Idem, p. 501. Decheumeath, i. e. planities ad austrum. And he derives Caled and Meath, from He­brew and Arabick of the same signi­fication. And this farther appears by comparing Dion Cassius cited by the Doctor, with Claudian; for Dion onely says, Britannorum duo sunt proesertim genera, Caledonii & Maeatoe: nam coeterorum nomina ad hos ferè referuntur. Incolunt Moea­tae juxta eum murum, qui Insulam in duas partes dividit; Caledonii post illos sunt. And Claudian tells us who were these against whom the Wall was built.

From which I observe, that the Moeatoe were in effect the Picts, who dwelt in the Low Countrey nearest the Wall, and that the Caledonii were the Scots who then lived in the Hills. So that Dion is so far from proving that the Wall was not built against the Scots and Picts, that he agreeth with the other Authours cited here and elsewhere, who all concur to prove, that the Wall was built against the Scots and Picts. And the Doc­tor might as well conclude, that our actions done here this day, are not done by the Scots, because our Hi­stories speak oft-times of the High­landers and Lowlanders, which are the Maeatoe and Caledonii. And I do conclude, that either the Doc­tor is not a man to parallel Au­thours with Authours, or else he [Page 26] is not of that candour I did former­ly take Dr. Stilling fleet to be.

The Doctor's Fourth Answer is, That when Beda makes the Scots a transmarine Nation, as dwelling be­yond the Friths, and not out of Bri­tain; this is onely said in his own defence; because in his first Chapter he had setled them in Britain: and no more respect should be had to this, than if a Scotish Writer in Be­da's time had spoken of the Trans­marine Saxons, using the words of an Authour who lived before their coming into Britain, and then should explain himself that he does not mean the German Saxons, but these who lived in Britain beyond the two Friths: Would this prove that the Saxons lived here before Iulius Coesar's time? all this I confess is a piece of odd reasoning: for certainly we must either deny all Authority and reason, or confess that Beda, who was so ancient an Authour, and liv'd so near to Gildas's time, and to our Countrey, behoved to know whe­ther the Scots liv'd in Ireland or not: And it is not to be thought, that Be­da [Page 27] would have written so distinctly and positively such a great and pal­pable Lye, merely to maintain his own Assertion: and therefore his acknowledgment, that we were set­led here beyond the Friths, and not in Ireland, proves sufficiently quod erat probandum; and it seems to me a descension below the gravi­ty of so great a Doctor, to sport himself over and over upon the em­pty criticism of my calling this a demonstration; neither is it any wonder, that the Doctor is angry at me when I cite Beda: for both the Bishop of Page 18. St. Asaph and C. 5. p. 285. he, treat Beda so, because what he writes makes for us.

To Gildas's Authority it is an­swered by the Pref. p. 60. Doctor, that by these Seas must not be understood the Friths of Forth and Clyde, but the Sea betwixt Ireland and Scotland; because that Gildas speaks still of them as carrying away their prey beyond Seas; and the passage over the Frith behoved to be as large as that over the Seas, being 40 miles in some places; whereas the passage [Page 28] betwixt Scotland and Ireland, is, in some places, but 13 miles. To this it is Reply'd, that the Friths are cal­led Mare Scoticum, both by our Laws and the English Writers: And to these I now add their own Brit. Descript. p. 24. Lud­dus. His words are, Bernicia verò à Tissa ad mare Scoticum, quod nunc Frith vocant. To which the Doc­tor neither has, nor can make any answer. And so the word Trans Ma­re is not impropriated when it is applyed to our mare Scoticum: and though in some places the Frith of Clyde be so broad at the very entry to the Ocean, where it is rather Sea than River, yet many parts betwixt Scotland and Ireland are much broa­der than the broadest part of the Friths. And the Scots in their Cor­roughs did not pass at the broadest part, but near the Wall at Dunbrit­ton, where they were nearest the Picts, and it is not a Mile broad there, and is little broader for a long tract of the River under it; and the broadest part of it is exceedingly more calm and passable than the I­rish Sea; the one being but a River [Page 29] and within Land, and the other be­ing a strait of the wide and open Northern Ocean, where the Sea, by how much it is straitned, becomes the more turbulent. And therefore when Claudian expresses our Invasi­ons and Flights, he does it by Oars.

But that of the Saxons by Sails.

Which presupposes Sails. Nor were the Corroughs mention'd by Coesar (l. 1. de bello Civili) cited by the Doctor, made for Seas, but Rivers, as is clear by the words, Nec pontes perfici possent; and these Militésque his navibus flumen transportat. Edit. Variorum 1670. & 492. It does not therefore appear probable, or reasonable, that a whole Fleet should be made by poor Pilferers of such stuff fit to carry an Army, with its prey, over so turbulent a Sea, and in the Winter time, they having fought [Page 30] and pillaged all the Summer, and the prey being then ordinarily either Cows or Horses, there being little else to be plundered; and if they had passed at Cantyre, which is that narrow place, they behov'd to have travell'd likewise over a whole tract of ground, and two other Seas, be­fore they had come to the Frith of Clyde, and the Britons Countrey. And Beda explaining Gildas's own words, tells us, that they ceas'd not to drive preys from the Britons; And agere praedam, to drive a prey, is what can onely be done by Land, and so could not have been done in Corroughs. Nor is that driving by Corroughs ever called a Piracy, as it would have, if it had been from one Island to another. But the carrying of Beasts over a River is consistent enough with the driving a prey, though that this, in the Doctor's sense, infers an impropriety in the words, as well as a contradiction to common sense.

Whereas it is in the last place, urg'd, that a Wall against the Scots [Page 31] and Picts had been ridiculous, if the Scots could have come against the Britons by Sea. It is replyed, that the Doctor (not knowing the Geography of the place so well as we, who have seen it) does not con­sider that this Argument proves ra­ther against himself; for if the Scots had dwelt in Ireland, which is al­most to the South from Dunbritton, It had been ridiculous to have built a Wall against them from East to West: for against these incursions from Ireland by Sea in Corroughs, it should have been built along the mouth and coast of Clyde, from South to North, and the Doctor will allow me at least to call this a De­monstration; it being a thing that may be seen. But the true reason why the Wall was built, is very ob­vious, viz. because the incursions were made by the Scots and Picts, who were not formidable except when u­nited, and they had no passage for an Army when united, but over the Wall: whereas any injury they could doe in their Corroughs over the Frith was very inconsiderable, and [Page 32] could have been easily stopt; and so the Wall was still usefull against Conquest, thoughnot against Piracy. And to conclude; all this is most consistent with Beda's Sense of Transmarine, but not with the Doc­tor's: And therefore we should ra­ther believe the venerable Beda speaking of things very near his own time, when they are very probable, than a Paradox, broacht lately, far distant from these times, and defend­ed now by our too partial Adversa­ries: especially since Beda shall be prov'd to agree thus, not onely bet­ter with common Sense, but with all the Authorities of the Roman Authours and Criticks. And I must still mind my Readers, that received Histories are not to be overturned without infallible Proofs brought a­gainst them. But who can be a more favourable Judge for the Doc­tor, than the Saxon and so his own Countrey-man, Albertus Crantzius? Or who can better understand the Time of the Saxons descent, and the History of Beda, than he who is himself the famous Saxon Historian? [Page 33] He C. 18. then tells us, that in the Year 449 the Saxons were first invited here, but he says, Let us write from a higher Rise. And so he proceeds to tell how the Picts setled here, and he adds, that within a very little after them, the Scots, resolving not to stay in Ireland, sailed sometime into Scotland; and being for a little time resisted by the Picts, Utraque gens eam inseder at provinciam quae jam diu Scotia est appellata. both Na­tions setled in that part, which is of very old called Scotland. After which, he proceeds to C. 19. settle the Romans, and to relate our Wars with them, and he gives an account that the Wall built by Severus, was a­gainst the Scots and Picts, without mentioning, either the Maeatae or the Caledonii. From which it is clear, that Crantzius not onely makes our settlement much elder, than that of the Saxons, and that we were here before them by way of settlement; and not by way of Incursion; but also expressly acknowledges, that our settlement was very near as old as the Picts, who are beyond all dispute own'd to have been here long before Iulius Caesar's time. And [Page 34] (which is very remarkable) he cites none of our Historians for con­firming his opinion, and cites onely Beda, whom he interprets, and un­derstands as we do, and as indeed all th World does, except our pre­judiced Adversaries.

It is also objected by the Doctor, that Gildas P. 13. Edit. Iocelia. tells us, that the Scots and Picts two Transmarine Nations, did first invade the Britons, under Maximus, which was long after Cae­sar's time. To which it is answered, that Gildas there designs not to speak of the first Invasion of the Scots and Picts, upon the Britons, but onely of the first of the three Vastations made by them: for the Scots and Picts did often invade the Britons formerly, as is clear by Eumenius and others, yet they were never able to waste their Lands, untill that Maximus disarm'd the Britons alto­gether, as Gildas relates. And after this, Gildas sets down the other two Vastations, and names them all, un­der the express numbers of First, Se­cond and Third Vastations. (1.) It is most clear by this passage, that [Page 35] the Scots who made this Vastation, liv'd not in Ireland but in Scotland, beyond the Wall and Friths; for Gildas calls both the Scots and Picts, Transmarine, without distinction. And certainly the Picts lived not in Ireland at that time, and therefore neither did the Scots: And conse­quently, Beda did most justly in­terpret the word Transmarine to be; not because they liv'd without Bri­tain, but beyond the Friths, and Beda intimates that that was the common acceptation of the Word Transmarine, which is imported in the Phrase, Transmarinas autem non dicimus, &c.

Because it's [...] by the Bishop and the Doctor, that Gildas can one­ly mean in all these passages, the Irish residing in Ireland; since he says Hiberni re­vertuntur do­mum. the Irish returned Home; and where could the Home of the Irish be, but in Ireland? I think fit to re­fer the Reader to the Seventh Section of my former Book; where I have fully prov'd, that by the Irish, in these Citations, is meant the Irish in­habiting Scotland, and which I shall [Page 36] again more fully vindicate in the fourth Chapter of this Book, from the objections urged in this New An­swer. I urged also in my Book, ma­ny Authorities to prove, that it was the general opinion, even of the Eng­lish Historians, that we were setled here, even before Iulius Caesar's time, to which the Doctor re­turns no Answer. And this having proved my position by Authorities within the Isle, I'll now pass to the foreign Authours.

Against the Citation urged from Eumenius in his Panegyrick to Con­stantius, the Doctor does very little else but repeat what the Bishop had said, and I had [...]ly refuted; and seeing he can make none but such in­considerable additions, I wonder to find that Argument renewed, unless the Doctor thinks that his Authority is greater than the Bishop of St. A­saph's, for I have already observed, that the Comparison is strong e­nough in Buchanan's Sense, which is all that is requisite. And I wonder to hear him say, that it was not a greater advantage, and more for [Page 37] Constantius's honour, that he did beat the Britons after they had been long trained up to fight, even by the Romans, than when they were altogether rude, and had never seen any enemies but Picts and Irish in Iulius Caesar's time: For as common reason teacheth us, that they could not but considerably improve, in near four hundred years time of fre­quent Wars; So the Bishop of St. Asaph tells us, P. 21. that, to the end they might more easily resist the Scots and Picts, the Romans taught them the Art of War, and furnisht them with Arms; which is suffici­ent to sustain the strength of the Oratour's comparison, when he as­serts, that Constantius's Victory over the Britons was greater than that of Caesar's: And albeit the next Para­graph mentioneth other advantages, yet it does not follow, that these ad­vantages were not very considerable, and these advantages are no part of the former Comparison, but make a new Paragraph, and are a new heightning of Constantius's Victory, from other grounds, (2.) I could [Page 38] never see how it could be truly said by the Oratour, that the Britons were used to fight against the Irish and Picts, if by the Irish be not meant there, the Scots: for as I have prov'd that we were called Irish in those Ages, so I desire to know where the Britons were used to fight against any Other Irish save those, who inhabited Britain? Nor do the Irish pretend that ever there were any Wars between the Britons and them, save onely in Egbert's time, which was many years after Caesar; and even this is but a Conjecture of a late Authour, Usher and Flahartie do adduce no more ancient Au­thour for it. And so that cannot verifie the Oratour's saying, that they were accustomed to fight a­gainst the Irish in Caesar's time. It is also very considerable, that the Picts here are joyned, as used to fight joyntly against the Britons, for it can never be instanced that the Picts joyned with any against the Britons, save with us. And it is in­deed incredible, that the Scots should be accustomed to fight from Caesar's [Page 39] time to Constantius's, and to the Year 503, (which must at least include about six hundred years, allowing onely one hundred years to verifie that word) and yet never settle where they fought, venturing their lives for the defence of other Mens Lands for a prey, which could be of very little use to be plundered in those days, there being little to be taken save Cattel, which could have been hardly transported in Cor­roughs over such boisterous Seas, (3.) The Doctor tells us, that Bri­tannicum, and not Britannum is the Adjective, or at least that this Au­thour useth onely Britannicum for the Adjective; and so soli Britanni were not good Grammar, if con­structed in the Genitive. But to this I reply, that the Doctor adverts not that I have prov'd by Citations, which he Answers not, that Britan­num is an Adjective and so soli Bri­tanni, good Grammar in the Geni­tive, and there is nothing more or­dinary for Oratours than to vary their Phrase, using sometime one way of expressing, and sometime [Page 40] another, variety in such Cases giving both delight and Ornament: Nor can I see why, if this had been ill Grammar, Cambden would not have carped at it, as he did not; or how Scaliger would not have taken no­tice of it, he having decided for us, after Buchanan had put this Con­struction on this expression: for though Scaliger doth not expressly take notice of the Construction, yet after he had fully considered the de­bate betwixt Buchanan and Luddus (wherein this was one chief Argu­ment) he decides for Buchanan, which upon the matter is a clear approbati­on of Buchanan's Construction. This is all I contended for, by citing Scaliger; onely the Citation of him on Tibul­lus is wrong printed, for that of his on Eusebius. And that this is a clear Consequence drawn from Scaliger in his Notes on Eusebius, is un­deniable. And if so, then certainly the opinion of Scaliger and Bucha­nan, with Cambden's acquiescence, is much to be preferred to our preju­diced Enemies, whose Learning does not lye so much that way. The [Page 41] Argument from the pointing addu­ced by the Doctor, in Puteanus's Edition of Eumenius is not onely contrary to that of Stephanus and Plantin, which I have cited; but even from that way of pointing, there is no advantage to the Doctor. For to sustain the words soli Britanni to be Nominative, there should have been a Comma after soli Britanni: For as they now run, Et soli Bri­tanni Pictis modo, & Hibernis assue­ta hostibus, they cannot be Construc­ted otherwise than thus, Natio rudis & assueta hostibus, Pictis & Hiber­nis, soli Britanni: And if soli Bri­tanni likewise had been Nominative, the Oratour to make good Gram­mar, should rather have said Natio rudis, & soli Britanni assueti, (and not assueta) Pictis & Hibernis. But abstracting from both the pointing and the Grammar, it is undeniable from this place, that this ancient Roman Oratour did in the days of Constantius before the Year 503. consider our Colony as accustomed to fight against the Britons, and as a distinct people joyned in this War [Page 42] with the Picts, which cannot be ap­plyed to any other Nation but to us. And therefore Cambden and Usher, more reasonably fly to another sub­terfuge, viz. that Eumenius spoke ac­cording to the conception of that Age, wherein he lived; and it is undeniable, that that Age considered onely us, and the Picts, as fighting against the Britons, and as two Na­tions fixt here. But this Answer is also very ridiculous; for if our Anti­quity had not been very considerable in Eumenius's days, the Oratour would not have exposed himself so far, as to found the Comparison upon a palpable lye, where he might have been traced; and so I confess if such kind of Answers as these be allowed, no Nation can prove its Antiquity. But agreeably to all these objections, this Citation proves at least, that the C. 1. Parag. 5. Bishop of St. Asaph's position, that the Scots were not at all in Britain, nei­ther by Incursion, nor by any other way, till the Year 300. is incon­sistent with this Roman Authour, as well as our Story, and the general belief of Rome at that time.

[Page 43] The next Authour whom I did cite, was Latinus Pacatius, who, in his Panegyrick to Theodosius upon his Victory in Britain, complements him for having reduc'd the Scots to their own Marishes; which shews, that the Scots had their own Ma­rishes in Britain before the year 503. To which the Doctor answer­eth nothing. And from the same Authours calling (in another place) the same Marishes, the Marishes of the Caledonians, I infer, that these Marishes were in Britain, and not in Ireland; and that the Scots were called Caledonians. And thereafter I adduce Valerius Flaccus and Mar­tial, to prove our Antiquity. To all which, the Doctor answers no­thing, but that the Caledonians were Britons, without answering my ci­tations, which I have adduc'd to prove this. And as to the Criticks whom I cite for us, C. 5. P. 283. he says very wisely and profoundly, that we are not to follow Modern Writers in their Improprieties. This Answer, so injurious to all the learned world, he also returns to my proving from [Page 44] Lipsius, Bergier and others, that Galgacus was a Scot. And when from Tacitus himself I prove, that he must necessarily have been a Scot, for the Irish Kings never came to fight in Britain. He could not be a Briton, because he was speaking to those who had never been under the Roman slavery. And Tacitus tells that he was a King of a Nation un­known, and but newly discovered, whereas the Romans formerly knew the Britons. Neither was he ever pretended to be a Pict, nor is he in the Genealogy of their Kings. To all this the Doctor answers nothing.

All then that is answer'd to my testimony from Tacitus, is, That those who fought under Galgacus, were Britons, and not Scots, as ap­pears by Galgacus's Speech to them, wherein he says, that they are the noblest of the Britons, and fight to recover the Liberty of the Britons: And if Tacitus had known that they came out of Ireland, he had told it; nor could that Irish King who was with Agricola, have omitted to in­form him of this. To which I Re­ply; [Page 45] That Agricola wrote not this relation himself, but it is written by Tacitus, who had it from Agricola, and so cannot be exact, being but the relation of a relation; and pro­bably Agricola knew more of it from that Irish King. But there is enough in Tacitus to prove, that we were setled in Britain at that time, and were of Spanish extraction from Ireland, which was all that Irish King could inform. For it is clear, (1.) That those who fought under Galgacus were Caledonians, and past not under the general name of Bri­tons; for Galgacus exhorts them, to shew by their valour, Quos sibi Cale­donia viros sepo­suerat. what brave Men Caledonia had separated from the rest; and though they were Bri­tons, yet that proves not that they were not Caledonian Britons, (2.) Gal­gacus tells, that they were yet Integri & In­domiti. un­conquer'd and untoucht, which is not applicable to the old Britons, for they were conquer'd before that time; but is so far peculiar to the Picts and us, that we are still called Indomitae gentes. (3.) Tacitus de­scribes two different People in Bri­tain, [Page 46] one big and white, which shew­ed them of a German extraction; a­nother black in hair and face, said to be of a Spanish extraction. And can any thing agree better with our Histories, and the description of the Picts, who are said to have come from Germany, and of us who are said to be a Colony of Spaniards, that rest­ed for some time in Ireland? And Tacitus's saying, that it could hardly be known then, whether these Na­tions were Indigenae an advecti. Originally Britons, or Strangers, shews, that we were there very anciently; which is also clear'd by Beda, and confirms what he and Eumenius say. And immediately after Tacitus, we are known under the names of Scots and Picts; and the ablest Criticks, who have com­pared Histories, call Galgacus expres­ly, King of the Scots; whose Inter­pretation, because that is their trade, and they are disinterested, must be prefer'd to the Doctor's; and I add now to Lipsius, Bergier and others, whom the Doctor acknowledges to prove that Galgacus was a Scot, Keppingius, who, though he doubts [Page 47] of some of our Antiquities, places amongst these things, which are Hist. Univers. de reb. gest. reg. Scot. certain, that in Agricola's time, Gal­gacus, King of Scotland, fought brave­ly to retain his Liberty: and Farna­bius, a learned and judicious English Critick, in his Commentary upon Martial, lib. Spectaculorum, Epigram. 7. l. 3. who on these words,

Saith, The Ursus Caledonius is è Scotia. And on these words, lib. 10. Epigram. 44.

He interpreteth Caledonios Bri­tannos to be Scotos, conform to his exposition of the foresaid words. [Nuda Caledonio, &c.] Schreveli­us also, in his Edition of Martial, cum not is variorum, is altogether of Farnaby's mind, and useth his very words in his Commentary upon the two fore-cited places. I will finish [Page 48] this period with Gretius, who, speak­ing of our Barclay, calls him Gente Caledonius, &c. And with Scaliger the Father, who, in his Exercitati­ons against Cardan, declares the Ur­si Caledonii to be Ursi Scotici: Which Authours, and many others, have prevail'd with Church-hill, in his Di­vi Britannici, to differ from our Doctor, in confessing that the Ca­ledonii were the Scots.

By the same Magisterialness, with which he contemn'd Lipsius, and the other Criticks, in the former ci­tation, he does also condemn the au­thority of Scaliger, and Salmasius, in my urging the Citations of Scoto­brigantes, in Seneca, and of the Sco­ticae primae, in Spartian. But howe­ver I must beg leave, notwithstand­ing this, to consider, those two anci­ent Authours, Seneca and Spartian, to be sufficient proofs of our Anti­quity, till the Doctor's friends can prove to me that he is a greater Cri­tick, and as impartial in this case as Scaliger and Salmasius are. But how­ever, the Doctor answers not the reasons I adduced, for proving these [Page 49] their Criticisms to be most just: and these are abstract from all authority, and I recommend the reading of them to any impartial Judge.

Claudian may be justly called by us, the Scotish Poet, as Beda is the Scotish Antiquary: for Claudian's whole Poem is, in effect, a conti­nued confirmation of our History. For he having written a Panegyrick to Honorius, and in it magnifying Theodosius his Grandfather, he de­scribes all along his fighting with the Scots, which Sigonius calculates to be in the year 367. as Isackson on this year observes. And I refer my Reader to my former Book, as to these passages cited by me, none of which passages can be applied to the Scots in Ireland, with whom Theodosius never fought, but onely to the Scots in Britain, with whom it is certain he did fight, many Mo­numents whereof are extant in that part of our Countrey called Ierna. But the Doctor says, though this were granted, yet it would fall much short of Alexander, or Iulius Caesar's time: And what then? for [Page 50] I never intended that this should prove either, but onely that we were elder than the 503. But (says he) there appears no Demonstration. More wonderfull still! for I called it no Demonstration, though I think it weighs as much as any thing in the Doctor's Book. And I take no­tice onely of this Raillery, and So­phistical way of answering, to detect the two great Engines which the Reverend Doctor useth all along in his Book.

That which he answers here spe­ciously is, that by Ierna, is meant Ireland by the Poet, and does he not mention the Scots moving all Ierne?

And is it not Poetical (says the Doctor) to say he mov'd all a little part of Scotland?

To which my Replies are, that first Scotland was called Ireland in these days, as I have prov'd in the se­venth Section of my former Book, [Page 51] and shall prove more fully in the fourth Chapter of this. Onely at present I shall add, the Lib. 1. c. 37. Many evidences we have that Scotland is oft call'd and hecht Hibernia, as Ire­land doth. English Po­lychronicon, which expresly tells us so, Prior to Fordon.

(2.) Did Theodosius conquer Ire­land, or persue them over to Ireland? and does any Authour call Ireland, [glacialis Ierne?] So then when a name is proper to two places, which of the two is meant, should be de­termined by the action which is said to be done in the place. And how agrees this with Beda's telling, that we were setled here long before that time, and were not Transma­rine? Or with Latinus Pacatius, who says, that Claudius, before that time, triumph'd over Britain, and reduc'd the Scots ad suas paludes? And where have the Irish any Mo­numents and Histories of these Vic­tories, as we have?

(3.) Does not Iuvenal expresly make us, Iuverna, which is the same thing with Ierna?

[Page 52] Which cannot be applied to Ireland, because the Romans never went thi­ther, much less went they beyond it; and the adding

does not all agree with Ireland: for it is neither joyn'd to, nor is it near the Orcades, nor has it so short nights as we have. But

(4.) The name of Ierna was not confin'd to the little Conntrey of Stratherne, but was extended to all the Northern Highlands, as far as In­nerness, and so the Raillery of [mo­ving all a certain little part] is insi­pid: nor is there any thing more or­dinary than to give the denominati­on of a part of a Countrey to the whole; and thus, when it is said, the King beat the Hollanders; By this, is meant, the whole Nether­lands, though Holland be onely a part: and this figure is so frequent in all the Latin Poets, that it were a mark of ones ignorance either to de­ny [Page 53] it, or insist on it. Thus Petro­nius Arbiter expresses the defeat gi­ven by Caesar to Aphranius in Spain, per funer a gentis Iberae, though Ibe­ria be but a little part of Spain, so called from the River Iberus, be­cause the Battel was fought there; which holds in every circumstance with our case, wherein the Poet de­scribes the trouble of all Scotland, by Ierna, because the Battel was fought there, though Ierna be onely a part of Scotland, called from a River of that name. And all Scotland, by the same Poet, and to this day, is called Caledonia, though Caledonia be but a small part of it about Dun­keld. And though I should grant that by Ierne here was meant Ire­land, yet that cannot make against our being setled here before that time; For it is very reasonable to think, that the Irish, hearing that the Romans had penetrated so far in­to Scotland, as to have defeated so many of these as came originally from Ireland, they would have sent over men to assist us; especially knowing that it might be their lot, [Page 54] next: even as if the French should beat and ruine the Scots now setled in Ireland, our whole Countrey would certainly be in a commotion, and we would send over men to their assistence, as we did in the late Wars. I confirm'd this citation of Claudian, by that of Sidonius Apollinaris, which is likewise an original proof of our Antiquity. To which the Doctor answers, that Sidonius distinguishes the Caledonian Britons from the Scots and Picts; This is, indeed, just such another, as if, because I call my self, in Latin, Scoto-Britannus, I should distinguish my self from the Scots and Britons. But I would fain know who were these Caledo­nian Britons, who were different both from the Scots and Picts; for after he has named the Caledonian Britons, in general, he specifies af­terwards both the Sc ts and Picts. There is no answer made to the te­stimonies from Hegesippus, Ammia­nus Marcellinus, nor Orosius: and therefore I now proceed to the Ec­clesiastick Writers cited.

[Page 55] After I had made it very proba­ble that this Nation received, very early, the Christian Faith, because the Christians, who were persecuted by the Romans, would fly hither to us who had never submitted to the Ro­man Tyranny: I cited, in general, for our Nations being converted under the Reign of King Donald, Baronius, as the standard of Ecclesiastick Hi­story amongst the Papists, and the Magdeburgick Centuries among the Protestants. And it is strange, if they, being disinterested, and having the help of their respective parties, should fail in so remarkable a mat­ter as that of the conversion of a whole Nation. Nor can Baronius be thought interested, because he would design to make our first Mission flow from Pope Victor, and our first Bi­shop to be sent from Pope Celestine: for it was all one to Baronius, as making as much for the Court of Rome, that our first Bishop came from any Posteriour Pope. And if our single and interested ad­versaries (though so mightily ex­tolled by one another,) should [Page 56] be preferred to these Authours, and as infallible as they would fain be thought, there is indeed an end of all Controversie. But I am sure the rejecting of all Authori­ties, I have cited, and which are not so much as controverted, will not take with the indifferent World, and that satisfies me. But however, be­side the Authorities of these great Men, let us consider the Grounds upon which they are founded, and which I have considered as well in all the Editions of Baronius I could find, as the Doctor could have done, though the Doctor in his wonted way Magisterially says, that it seems I never looked into him. I am used in my Employment to be contra­dicted, which makes me look ex­actly to my Citations. And where­as the Doctor tells, that what Ba­ronius says, relates to the Conver­sion of the Scots, and not to their Antiquity, This is very ill reasoned: for it Baronius concludes, that we were a distinct Christian Nation from the Irish; and had a Church distinct from theirs long before the [Page 57] Year 503. it must necessarily fol­low, that in Baronius sense, we were a Nation settled here long before the Year 503.

Prosper does expresly say, that Palladius was sent to the Scots be­lieving in Christ, to be their First Bishop, ordain'd by Pope Celestine. This Mission is acknowledged to be in the Year 431. and consequently there were Scots before that time, believing in Christ, so nationally, as to need a Bishop. The Contro­versie then is, whether these Scots, to whom Palladius was sent, were the Scots in Ireland, or the Scots in Bri­tain for these Reasons. (1.) Be­cause Beda says so in those Chapters, wherein he speaks onely of us, and not of the Irish, and Dr. Stillingfleet onely repeats here what I have formerly refuted. And Beda could not but understand best of any man the Conversion of a Nation, to which he was so near a Neighbour, to a Church, in which he is accoun­ted so eminent an Historian and Tea­cher. (2.) The universal Tradition of the Christian Church, and of ours [Page 58] in particular, makes Palladius our First Bishop, and our Monasteries and Church-men could not but carefully transmit such a point as that to us; especially in an age wherein Lear­ning and Letters were freqeent e­nough to be usefull, in remembring so extraordinary a point. And St. Patrick is acknowledged by the I­rish themselves, to be their First Bi­shop, which could not be if Palladius had been before him so that the Doctor here is forced to ove [...] all History and Tradition, to establish his own. (3.) The same Prosper does elsewhere say, that Palladius being ordain'd Bishop for the Scots, whilst he studied to preserve the Roman isle, Catholick, he made the Barbarous, Christian. And that our Countrey was called an Isle, is ac­knowledged by all Writers, after the building of the Wall. But I now farther evince this point by Hadria­nus Valesius, an Authour much com­mended by the Doctor himself, who, lib. 3. Rer. Francicar. pag. 144. ad annum 429. has this most clear and unanswerable passage. Sic igitur [Page 59] Britanniae Provincias quinque quae Ro­manis paruerant, Angli occupavere. Reliqua Picti Scotique incolebant: Et cum antea ut Prosper docet, pars Britanniae imperio Romano subjecta, Romana Insula, pars à Pictis, & Scotis habitata, barbara Insula appel­laretur, omnis Britannia barbara In­sula facta est. With whom agree Agente palladio Scotorum Episco­po a Coelestino in Britanniam mis­so ut Pelagianam haeresin extingue­ret. Rationar. tempor ad. an. 429. Petavius & Car. Sigon. de Imper. Oc­cident. p. 291. So that Dr. Stilling­fleet does unwarrantably turn this our Argument into an objection. And the matters of Fact narrated, being onely applicable to Scotland, as I have said, and as is clear, by the best Interpreters that must de­termine the Case betwixt the Irish and Us. (4.) Baronius and the Magdeburgick Centuries make Palla­dius our First Bishop and the Mission to be to Us: And though they be not allowed by the Doctor to be ab­solute Judges, yet certainly they must be allow'd to be the best Inter­preters, and Baronius expresly says, Una omnium cum Prospero est Sen­tentia, &c. that all others were of this opinion.

[Page 60] The learned Bishop of St. Asaph, and Dr. Stilling sleet, to overturn this undeniable point, have invent­ed a New Hypothesis of Palladius, having been first sent to Ireland, but that his Mission being unsuccessfull, he came back and died in the Con­fines of the Picts, and then the same Pope Celestine, sent St. Patrick; which Hypothesis I may now think is fully overturned, since Dr. Stil­ling fleet answers nothing to the ma­ny absurdities and inconsistencies which I urged against it; and to which I onely now add that since the Bishop confesses that he dares not deny, that there were several Conversions made before Palladius in Ireland about the Year 400, It is strange that Palladius should have met with so much opposition, as to make him so soon despair, that he returned notwithstanding his Zeal, and St. Patrick posted from France to Rome, and from thence to Ireland within less than a Year: and so Pal­ladius is onely called the first Bishop in Nomination, and St. Patrick the first in Success. Rare reasoning, rare [Page 61] despairing, rare posting, and rare distinctions to over-turn the univer­sal Traditions and Histories of all the Nations concerned! Upon which account the Bishop of St. Asaph P. 59. doth very ingenuously confess, that this doth not consist well with our Hypothesis, nor with Prosper's own words. And all this is founded up­on Nennius, as the Doctor C. 2. P. 53. acknow­ledges, and the P. 56. Bishop of St. Asaph, and yet they confess that he is but a fabulous Authour, and cites Prosper most falsly, saying that Palladius Missus est ad Scotos in Christum con­vertendos, and upon a Notation of time falsly imputed to Baloeus, which I formerly urged, and is not answer'd. And the Doctor in the forecited 2d. Chapter, p. 53. would have us be­lieve that Prosper contradicts him­self in making the Scots to be converted by Palladius, and yet to have been Christians before his time, which are inconsistent. But he knows better things, for there were Christians here before Palladius: for he was sent to be the first Bishop [Page 62] which presupposes Christians already converted, and a Church ready to be established; and he being sent al­so to convert us from the Pelagian Heresie, as Baronius Petavius and others observe, it must necessarily follow that we were a Church be­fore that time, and remarkable too, for having a Heresie (which is an Errour long, and obstinately main­tain'd) spread amongst us, and con­sequently we must necessarily have been a Nation long before that time. But all men must be ignorant, and in­consistent, when they make against the Doctor, and he cannot answer them. And why doth the Doctor lay the stress of this P. 68. objection up­on Prosper: if he be such an Au­thour as is not consistent with him­self, as the P. 53. Doctor says? And there­fore I may be allowed to say that Prosper's Testimony is for us.

I must beg the Doctor's leave to say, That the learned Dr. Hammond differs not from me in the Point here controverted; for I have pro­ved clearly from him, That we were Christians long before the Year [Page 63] 503. by Dr. Stillingfleet's own Con­fession, pag. 63. praef. For if we were converted before the Year 503, We were setled before that Year. But so it is, That Dr. Hammond confesses, we were converted before Celestine's time, and that Palladius was sent to our Scotia, and not to Ireland; To which Dr. Stillingfleet makes no solid Answer at all. And where the Doctor says, That I concealed Dr. Hammond's asserting that we received the first Rudi­ments of the Christian Faith from the Britains, in rejecting the Roman Customs; It is answered, That whe­ther we received Christianity from the Greek or Romish Church, or whe­ther our Conversion was rude or perfect, is not here controverted; But whether we received it before Palladius's Mission: And that we were Christians before his time, is clear from Dr. Hammond's own express Words. And though I relate our Conversion by Pope Victor, as the common opinion, yet I am so little tyed to that opinion, That I also, from Beda, relate our Agreement [Page 64] as to Easter and other Points, with the Greek Church, in contradiction to that of Rome; and from which, Archbishop Spotswood did, before Dr. Hammond, think that our Conver­sion was from the Grecian Church.

To conclude this whole Point, concerning Palladius, I am sure its very Irreconcileable, that Dr. Stilling­fleet should acknowledge that the Bi­shop of St. Asaph mis-cited Baloeus, for proving that Palladius dyed Anno 431. (upon which, his whole Hy­pothesis depends) and yet that he should positively assert, That the Bishop's onely fault was, that he was too exact in that Hypothesis.

The next Ecclesiastick Authour I did cite was Tertullian, who about the Year 202. says C. 7. contr. Iu­daeos as it is translated by St. Asaph, praef. p. 8. that the Bri­tish Nations that could not be sub­dued by the Romans, yet willingly yielded their Necks to the Yoke of Christ. To this the Doctor onely answers, that this must be under­stood of the Moeatoe and Caledonii. But this is inconsistent with Baroni­us's applying that passage to us: and that Sense is not so much for the ho­nour [Page 65] of the Christian Religion, these being but sub-divisions of a Nation. But since this passage of the Con­quer'd Nations in Britain, and that I have proved unanswerably by Be­da, that the Picts and We were these unconquered Nations, it necessarily follows, that this passage is onely applicable to us.

The Doctor answers St. Ierome transiently, applying likewise what is said there of the Scots, to the Scots in Ireland, without giving any special answers to the Citations. But I have so fully refuted this in my Book, that it needs no reply. But if the Reader please, he may likewise consider St. Ierome, where, speaking of Pelagius, he says, Habet enim progeniem Scoti­cae gentis de Bri­tannorum vici­nia. His extraction was from the Scotish Nation in the Neighbour­hood of Britain. And though some contend that Pelagius was a Briton, none ever contended that he was an Irish man, and the Neighbourhood of the Britons cannot be extended so properly to Ireland, as to us. But whether Briton or Scot, yet it is clear from this Citation, as well as from the former, that in Ierome's opinion [Page 66] there was a Scotish Nation living then in Britain, and that this was the common opinion of the Age, else so good an Authour would not have written so.

To the Citation from Epiphanius, nothing is answered.

I confirmed all these Citations by several reasons, which are not so subject to quibbling as Citations are; for these are founded on common Sense, and therefore the Doctor an­swers little or nothing unto them. But I hope the Reader will duly weigh them. But how can it be imagined that the Irish would have sent no Colonies to settle, till after the 500. Year of God, they having been time out of mind, ac­knowledged to have been setled in Ireland, and being a very broody People, and having no Wars (whereas the design of Colonies is to dis-burthen the Nation by fo­reign Settlements) or that they would not have assumed to them­selves the Glory and advantage of these Wars? or that the Scots here would have fought for the Picts [Page 67] above six hundred years together, without setling in the Countrey, which they conquered, contrary to the Custome of all other Nations, who made Incursions? Or how can it be imagined that the Romans would not have resented against the Irish, all their Inrodes, if they had been made from Ireland? Or that the Picts could have subsisted with­out the Scots, the Romans and Bri­tons staying all the year within the Isle, and the Scots going home al­ways in the Winter? Or if they had not been setled among the Picts, till the Saxons were setled among the Britons, how is it imaginable, that the Picts would have invited them to setle then, when they had seen how the Britons were ruined by their Auxiliaries? Or why would the Picts have invited them to setle among them, when the Picts were become more nu­merous, by the Generations of six hundred years, and after that they themselves were straitned in their Possessions by the Irruptions of the Saxons; a new Nation who had [Page 68] gained all betwixt the two Walls, which was, in effect, the far better half of what they possest? And since the Scots and Picts were still joyned in all the Actions that were performed, and are spoken of still in the same way, and Phrase, how should we think the one was setled, and the other not? And that no mortal Historian, or other, should have observed this, till Luddu's time? All these reasons supporting one ano­ther, and joyned to our Citations, should be at least allowed to maintain the Authority of so many Historians and Histories, in possession of belief.

Having thus established my own position, by Authorities and Rea­sons, I appealed in this difference be­twixt interested Countries, to the dis-interested Judgment of the great­est Criticks and Historians, and all whom I have cited are acknowledg­ed to be on our side, as I have for­merly cleared in the respective Cita­tions. To which nothing is an­swered, but that we must not be­lieve them (being Modern Writers) in their Improprieties: An answer [Page 69] indeed, not worthy of so under­taking an Antiquary. That we must not believe Antiquaries in their own Art, nor dis-interested Authours in differences between interested Na­tions. But since Scaliger is the one­ly Critick, who is alledged not to be positive for us, I here insert his own Words. In Tibullum, lib. 4. Te ma­net invictus? Invictus sane adhuc eo tempore. Nam hactenus ne Caesar quidem illos subjugavit. Primus Cae­sarum, Claudius de illis triumphavit: Cujus rei amplissimum testimonium ha­bes in Catalect. meorum lib. 1. nem­pe Elegantissimos versus à quodam ejus temporis poeta scriptos quos inde petas licet. Sed & Seneca, in [...], idem testatur in Choricis A­napoestis, & Coeruleos Scotobrigantes, pro quo ineptissimè hodie editur Scu­tabrigantas. Quare & Scoti hanc gentis suoe Antiquitatem mihi debent, qui primus illum locum emendavi, quum ipsi hactenus gentis suoe testem Claudiano antiquiorem non haberent.

And in Eusebium n. 20. 60. Et Caerulei Scotobrigantes, ut olim fe­liciter à nobis emendatum esse asseri­mus: [Page 70] adversantur tamen quidam, in quibus boni, malique; docti, indocti; Aiunt Scotos ante tempora senescentis, imperii notos non fuisse. Utinam de­monstrationem attulissent quâ nobis ju­gulum peterent. Ante Constantini tempora, inquiunt, notum Scotorum nomen non erat. Acutum sane te­lum, nisi plumbeum esset. Burgundi­ones & Longobardi, decrepitâ oetate imperii coeperunt notescere. Qui eo­rum meminerunt, de vetustissimis Vel­leius, & Ptolomaeus, extant hodie. Si periissent, ut multi alii, ideo Lon­gobardos tunc primum, quum in Itali­am irruperunt, Burgundiones quum Viennensem & secundam Narbonen­sem occuparunt, esse, & vocari, coepis­se diceremus—

Qui igitur ex Hiberniâ in Britan­niam ferocissimi trajecerunt, non esse coeperunt, nisi postquam in Britan­niâ fuerunt? Quid stultius? Quid in­eptius? Sed eorum nulla mentio apud Ptolomaeum & Cornelium Tacitum, atqui nec Burgundionum, Longobar­dorum, Anglorum & Gothorum, apud Plinium, Strabonem, Melam, alios. Quam indignoe sunt hoe veli­tationes [Page 71] liberalibus ingeniis?—

Postquam per multum tractum tem­poris Septentrionalem oram Britanniae excursionibus & latrociniis vexassent, tandem ab Antonino Pio in ordinem redacti, finibus suis sese continuerunt.

From which I argue thus, Scali­ger there concludes, that we were one of the Nations against whom Claudius fought, and that we were never subdu'd till then. for Claudi­us never fought against the Irish; and the Scots here spoken of by Sca­liger, must be those whose antiqui­ty Scaliger did formerly prove out of Seneca: for he says, Et Scoti hanc genti suae antiqui­tatem mihi de­bent. the Scots owe to him the Antiquity of their Nation. But so it is, that the Irish living in Ireland, do not owe the An­tiquity of their Nation to him: for it is not deny'd on either side, that they were much more ancient; and I am sure the Irish were not called Scots, in Scaliger's time. And both this passage of Tibullus, and that of Seneca, joining the Scots to the Bri­tons, must certainly be interpreted onely of the Scots in Britain, accor­ding to Usber's own rule.

[Page 72] The passage likewise cited by me out of Eusebius, ad M. M. L. X. does also prove, that Scaliger thought us elder than the declension of the Ro­man Empire, as is now alledged, for he speaks there of that Nation, of whom he had formerly spoken out of Seneca. But so it is, we were these Scots, and not the Irish: And it was never controverted; but the Irish was a Nation long before that time, as I said formerly: and con­sequently, Scaliger contemns very justly those Authours, who deny, that we were 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 [Page 73] 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 [Page 74] 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 [Page 75] 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, De Occident: Imp. l. 6. p. 141. 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.

[Page 76] 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.

[Page 77] 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.

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 [Page 79] 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 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 [Page 80] 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 [Page 81] 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 [Page 82] 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 aliis (que) publicis privatisque erant monumen­tis, incensâ urbe, plerae (que) periere. But because there is a debate be­twixt the Doctor and me, concern­ing the Translation of these words, [Page 83] 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 [Page 84] 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 [Page 85] 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 [Page 86] 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 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.

[Page 87] 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 [Page 88] 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 [Page 89] 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 [Page 90] 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 [Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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 [Page 93] 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 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: [Page 94] 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 [Page 95] 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.

[Page 96] 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 [Page 97] 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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, [Page 100] 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 [Page 101] 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 [Page 102] 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 [Page 103] 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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] 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 [Page 107] 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 [Page 108] 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 Church­hill 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 [Page 109] 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 [Page 110] 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. Antiquit. Hi­bern. c. 5. 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, Praef. p. 28. 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 [Page 111] 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 De Antiq. Hi­bern. c. 5.. But with­out the other, Letters had been al­together useless: for in what could they have employed them, if not in this? And since Caesar De Bell. Gal. l. 6. is positive, that they us'd the Graecian Letters, [Page 112] 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 L. 17. c. ult.: 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, [Page 113] 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.

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 Pref. p. 5. concerning them; though he cites se­veral Chronicles; and though For­don mentions an old High Land Gen­tleman, a Genealogist, who gives an Lib. 3. c. 2. [Page 115] 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 [Page 116] shortning the Royal Line, as the Bishop of St. Asaph. He adds also, Lib. 5. cap. 60. 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, [Page 117] 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 [Page 118] 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 Which is not Lib. 4. but l. 3. 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 [Page 119] 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 Lib. 2. c. 12. 13. [...]. and lib. 3. [...]. [...]. Et in [...] Recapitu­latione. Persons, as Fergus, Reuther, Eu­genius; so he distinguisheth their [Page 120] times, and tells how long the whole Kings reigned, and gives Disticks con­taining the Periods of their Reigns:

And in the place cited by the Doctor, he asserts, that the forty five Kings were ejusdem generis & gentis, Lib. 3. c. 1. and Fergus's return is set down:

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, [Page 122] 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 Historians, is omitted, and Henry placed for him. But this was very reasonable: for St. David Ford. l. 8. c. 1. l. 1. c. 39. l. 12, 13, 14. fol. 48. 57. l. 5. passim. Boeth. l. 11, 12, 13, & 15. passim. Euch. lib. 7, 8, & 9. passim. Les [...]. lib. 6, & 7. passim. 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 [Page 123] 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 Ford. lib. 5. at the beginning. Maj. lib. 3. c. 5. Boeth. lib. 12. Buch. l. 7. Les [...]. l. 5. 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 [Page 124] 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, [Page 125] 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 [Page 126] 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, [Page 127] and Dongallus was Solvathius's Son, and so Collateral, to shew the ex­actness of our Historians, as well in Ford. lib. 3, & 4. Maj. lib. 3. Boeth. lib. 8, 9, 10. Buch. lib. 5. 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 [Page 128] 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 Chap. 5. of the Settlement of the Scots in Britain under Aydan, in the be­ginning [Page 129] 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 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 [Page 130] 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.

[Page 131] 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 [Page 132] 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 Lib. 2. 5, & 6. L. 4., Buchanan Lib. 2. & 3. and Lesly Pag. 10.. 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 [Page 133] 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 [Page 134] 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 [Page 135] 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 Lib. 14. cap: 27. 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.

[Page 136] 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 long after Fergus the Second's time, the Collaterals did certainly succeed, till that evil Custome was abrogated by Kenneth the Third, about 700 years agoe. And al­beit many Murthers and Encroach­ments were committed upon these Kings of the first Race, their times being more barbarous, what is that to the purpose? Were they there­fore [Page 137] never in being, or not Kings? Doth not Flahertie tell us, that of the first hundred thirty six Kings of Ireland; Centum ferrum sustulit, sep­temdecim naturae concesserunt, sex pestis absumpsit; tres fulmine percussi, & decem diversis aliis modis, singuli vivis excesserunt? Were there not Murthers and Usurpations in our second Race, and hath not the like been every where? And doth not the Doctor remember of Richard the Third of England, who mur­thered Edward the Fifth and his Bro­ther, who were his own Nephews, and usurped the Crown? And the inserting these, to lengthen the Line in favour of Regents had been ri­diculous: for by a clear Law these were cut off in Kenneth the Third's time; and so our Historians need­ed not the help of forged Genealo­gies in this. So that I can see no Design nor Politick in Fordon nor Boeth, in this number and account they give of our Kings, nor that they have differed from the Genealogist, nor that the Highland Genealogist hath shortned the Royal Line, as the [Page 138] Bishop of St. Asaph hath done. And the Doctor ought to have remem­bred, that I did undertake onely to maintain the Antiquity of our Royal Line at the least; to refute the Bi­shop of St. Asaph's Hypothesis, of a Settlement in the Year 503, and not to vindicate every passage and part of our History which cannot be done, as to any profane History.

By all which I may conclude most convincingly, that these three ac­counts given of the Genealogies of our Kings are so far from Contra­dicting our History, that they agree with it, and being inserted in three several Genealogies, prior to For­don, and being exprest by them up­on very solemn occasions they do fortifie much the truth of the Ge­nealogy of the Royal Line, and that Fordon did not dream the same, but inserted these Genealogies in his Hi­story from good Authours and by good Authority.

The Reader may for his better un­derstanding the Answers formerly made, take a general view of this complex matter, as sum'd up in these short Positions.

[Page 139] I. That the Highland Gentleman was obliged to ascend from Son to Father, as all Genealogies do; and consequently he was obliged to name some who were not Kings, because they were Fathers to Kings.

II. He was obliged to omit Colla­terals, because, though they were Kings, yet they were not such as were comprehended within the Gradation from Son to Father, whereas our History rightly sets down those who succeeded as Brothers, as well as Sons.

III. In this Genealogy some are omitted, as Bastards, and other U­surpers; and so should not have been insert in a Genealogy to be repeated before the King, though they were likewise expressed in our Histories, they having Reigned de facto, though not de jure.

IV. The greatest doubt, that is made by the Doctor himself, as to our Kings, is since Fergus the Se­cond, after which, the Irish and o­thers acknowledge our Historical Genealogy; or after Kenneth the Second, since which time even [Page 140] Ubbo Emmius does assert the truth of our History. And so any difference betwixt our History and Genealogy must arise from the mistake of the Genealogist's memory, or the Tran­scriber's negligence; and I have con­descended upon a probable Ground of mistake.

V. Most of the Difficulties arise from the difference of Names of the same Persons, which is very ordi­nary in all Genealogies.

VI. There could be no Design in our Historians inserting any to fa­vour the Right of Regents: for the Succession of Regents was condemn'd by a positive Law, before some of these controverted Kings did suc­ceed.

VII. It is not imaginable, that our Historians would insert in their Histories contradictory Genealo­gies: for that were so palpable, that, though it could have escaped one Hi­storian, yet it could not have escaped many.

VIII. To illustrate farther the whole matter, I have subjoyned the Tree of Alexander the Third his [Page 141] Predecessours, both in the Direct and Collateral Line, whereby it doth evidently appear, that all his Prede­cessours mentioned by the Genea­logist were in the direct Line, and that these Kings of whom the Ge­nealogist made no mention, were onely Collaterals to King Alexander; whose Genealogy was recited. And I have also farther continued this Genealogy in a direct Line from St. David by the Families of Bruce, and Stuart to King Iames the Se­venth, who now Reigns.

I Having urg'd, that our Histo­rians were to be believed in mat­ters of fact, such as are the Genea­logies of our Kings, they being ma­ny, and Men of Authority; and ha­ving declared, that they extracted their Histories from Authentick Re­cords, though now lost: And these matters of fact being probable in themselves, and adminiculated by the current of Foreign Histories and Authours, except our Adversaries should redargue them by Authours living in the time, or more credible, which were inconsistent with them. [Page 143] The Doctor did therefore urge the inconsistency of our Genealogies a­mongst themselves, which I have fully answered in the preceding Chapter, and their inconsistency with the Irish Annals, which he contends are to be preferred to ours, We being descended from the Irish, and they having more ancient An­nals than ours; which I am to an­swer in this Chapter. And, for the preference of our Histories in the point of Credibility, I adduce these following Arguments.

1. No History can be discredited, as uncertain and fabulous, upon the Testimony and Authority of ano­ther History, except that other His­tory be acknowledg'd by both the Debaters; but much less, where it is reprobated by him, who urges an Argument from it. But so it is, that Dr. Stilling fleet himself does treat the Irish Annals in Ridicule, as to the remote part of their Antiquity, in his Preface, page 33. and Chap. 5. p. 272. where he proves, that they had not sufficient Warrants before Pref. p. 47. [Page 144] the Eleventh Century, which is long after the time, wherein both the Bi­shop of St. Asaph and he acknow­ledges that we were setled here. And consequently the Authority of their History is not sufficient to overturn the time of our settlement, as it is asserted by our Historians.

2. We desire to know, what War­rants the Irish had within six Gene­rations of Iaphet? Especially to warrant them, not onely to conde­scend upon particular actions, men­tioned, and adminiculated by no o­ther Histories, but even to be spe­cial in the coming of some from Ire­land, Ogyg. part 3. cap. 1. just 40 days before the Floud. And that Partholanus, and others, Ogyg. part 3. cap. 2. arrived in Ireland, Anno 312. after the Floud, in the month of May, the 14th of the Moon, and upon Wednesday. And how the Doctor should urge this History against ours, as sufficient to overturn the credibility of ours, when he will not allow us to know so much, as when our Nation at first setled in Scotland, and who was our first King, about [Page 145] 2000 years after that time, when the Romans, who lived long in our Neighbourhood, in France, and fought long with us, are acknow­ledged to have had the use of Let­ters, and the way of calculating time: both which were absolutely unknown in the Ages mentioned in the Irish Annals. And either the Irish had the exact knowledge of Letters, and the calculation of time, when our first Colonies came over from them, or not: If they had them; why not we likewise? and so the Doctor does unjustly object to us, that our Histories are not to be believed, because we wanted both these. Or if the Irish had them not, our History cannot be overturned by the Authority of theirs.

3. It's acknowledg'd by all the Irish, except Iocelin; that we were at least setled here since the Year 503. and so since that time we must understand the History and descent of our own Kings better than any o­ther Nation can doe; nor should any man debate with these that [Page 146] deny this principle. But so it is, that since that time, the Irish accompt of the descent of our Kings differs extremely from ours; for they will have Loarn to have been our first King, and elder Brother to Fergus, whereas our Story makes no mention at all of any such King, but makes Fergus the Second the Restorer of our Monarchy. And their Cata­logue calls him Fergusius Magnus, a title never given to him who founds, but to him who augments the Mo­narchy. And how can any man imagine, that a Nation would have forgot who was the Founder of their Monarchy, and being so late, and yet have remembred his Brothers, and all the rest of the Line; espe­cially since Loarn is said to have reign'd ten years, as Offlahartie says. We make Eugenius the Second to have succeeded to this King Fergus, but they make Domangardus to have succeeded to him.

They make Congallus to have suc­ceeded to Domangardus, but we make Constantine the First to have [Page 147] succeeded to Dongardus, whom I conceive they make Domangardus.

To our Corranus, whom he calls Gouranus, did succeed Eugenius the Third; but he makes Conallus to have succeeded to him.

To Congallus succeeded truly Kenatellus, but he makes Ayda­nus to have succeeded to him.

To Aydanus succeeded Keneth the First, but he makes Achaius the First to have succeeded to him.

The differences after him, will best appear in these Columns, which may likewise be observed from the beginning of this period.

So that, comparing. Flahertie's ac­count with ours, we shall find them to differ in names, the times of their Reign, and Degrees of their Con­sanguinity, the Irish omitting some who did Reign, and inserting others who never Reign'd, or at least, who Reign'd not near these times, in which they are placed.

My fourth Argument shall be, That after the Year 503 we are ac­knowledged to be setled, and to have had a distinct Kingdom from Ire­land, and to have had the learned Monastery of Icolmkill, from which Swarms of learned Men were sent to all places; But especially to [Page 149] the Saxons in Lindesfarne, to whom Aidan, Finan and Colman were sent Bishops, as St. Asaph and Flahertie ac­knowledge. And therefore it cannot be denied, but that our Histories must be much better believed, than either the Irish Annals, or the Chronicle of Melross, though they agreed in what they differed from our Histories; But much more, when they contradict one another; especially when their differences are very considerable. And since the Chronicle of Melross is judg­ed so Authentick by the Bishop and the Doctor; it must be concluded, that, when that Chronicle differs very much from the Irish, and comes near to ours, ours must be preferred to the Irish in point of Credibility. But so it is that all this will appear by com­paring the three, in so far as concerns the Genealogies of our Kings, from Murdachus, to Kenneth the Second.

By our Histories and Genealo­gies, Murdachus was Son to Amber­kellethus, and began to Reign Anno Christi 715, whereas by the Chro­nicle of Mailross he is made the Son of Ewam as he was indeed Successour [Page 150] to Ewam, or Eugenius his Uncle, Chron. Mail. p. 136. edit. Oxon. 1684. though not his Son, and he is called Murizant, and he is said there to be­gin his Reign Anno 741. But by the Irish Catalogue of the Scotish Kings in Ogygia, his Reign is said to Ogyg. p. 480. begin Anno 733.

By our History, Etfinus, Son to Eugenius, begun his Reign Anno 730. By the Chronicle, Ewen, Son to Mu­rizant, Anno 744. By the Catalogue, Dongallus Son of Selvachus, is said to succeed his Cousin German Mur­dachus, Anno 736. Whereas Don­gallus did not succeed till the Year 824. Nor did Solvathius succeed till the Year 767.

To Etfin succeeded Eugenius, who began to Reign Anno 761. according to our History. By the Chronicle, Hedobbus, the Son of Ewen, suc­ceeded to Ewen, Anno 747. By the Catalogue Achaius the Fourth suc­ceeded to Dongall, Anno 743, and Offlahartie the Authour of the Cata­logue subjoyns to this King an ob­servation, that in divers Copies of this Poem or Catalogue. Selvachus, A­chaius the Third, Achaius the Fourth, [Page 151] and Achaius the Fifth, and Gregory are wanting; which shews, of 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?

[Page 152] 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.

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 [Page 153] 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 Praef. p. 25. 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 [Page 154] 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 [Page 155] 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 Ogyg. Pr. p. 27. 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 [Page 156] 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, [Page 157] 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 Lib. 14. c. 44. 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 Lib. 11. c. 15. Iohn Baliol (then pretended King of Scotland) refused to joyn with [Page 158] Edward of England against Philip of France, because of the ancient League made by their Predecessours Charlemain and Achaius, Et usque nunc inconcusè servata. Whereupon a League is renewed and confirmed by a Marriage, the Tenour whereof is also extant in Fordon, who also sets down the Tenour of the Pope's Bull, prohibiting Alexander the Se­cond, our King, to continue in his League with the King of France, but to joyn with the King of England; and, as an effect of these Leagues, Marianus (whom the Irish call their Countrey-man, albeit they also con­fess, that he called our Countrey Scotia) mentions, that Anno 1070, the Scots and French wasted the English: Which shews, that this Al­liance was much elder, than either the 1425, or the 1380, as O Flaher­tie asserts: And therefore, that ex­cellent Historian the Sieur Varillas Education du Prince, l. 1. chap. 1. p. 39. relates, that Charles the Fifth's Go­vernour did advise him not to ex­pect, that the King of Scotland would enter into his Interests, because the Alliance of that Nation with the [Page 159] French had lasted seven hundred Years, without interruption, from King to King, before that time. And by these we may see, what a just Au­thour Ubbo Emmius is, who rejects our History for many years after this Alliance, and how judiciously he is produced by the Doctor. But, though the French could have been mistaken in all their Histories, yet it is not imaginable, that they would have bestowed great Privileges and Rewards upon us for Services done by the Irish; and that the Families, who came over at that time, would not have own'd themselves to be descended from the Irish, and not from us.

The Doctor, to induce his Rea­ders to believe, that we are mista­ken Praef. p. 4. 46. in the Genealogies of our own Kings, pretends that the true Reason of the mistake of the Scotish Anti­quities was, that we finding, that there was a Fergus in the Irish Ge­nealogy called Fortis or Fortamalius, who Reigned truly in 3775, and that in the descent of that Fergus there was a Conar; and from him [Page 160] Rieda called by the Irish Carbre Rieda, and by us Eoch and Ried; and that there were several other Names in our Genealogies agreeing with the Genealogies of the Irish, as Eochoid, who was Father to Erk, and is acknowledged by both to be Father to Fergus the Second; the Doctor from all this concludes, that the Original mistake lay in apply­ing the Irish Genealogy to the Kings of Scotland, and that we ei­ther imagined, or would have others believe, that all the Kings mention­ed before Fergus the Son of Erk were Kings in Scotland, and so went back by degrees, till we made up a formal Story of forty Kings.

To this we Answer; That it were a strange thing, that our Story, which we have so well prov'd, should be overturned by the Doctor's mere Conjecture; especially, seeing there is no Ground for such a Conjecture from any of these Steps on which the Doctor founds his Probability. No Authour, for ought we can see, concurs with the Doctor in this Con­jecture, as to Fergus; and O-Fla­hertie, [Page 161] who pretends that he under­stands Ogyg. p. 468. the differences betwixt the Descents and the Reasons thereof, goes no higher than Conar the Se­cond. And speaking twice of Fer­gusius Ogyg. p. 114, & 264. Fortis, he makes not at all him to be the first Authour of our Race. 2. If we had not had a sure Warrant of the Settlement and Ge­nealogy of our Kings, but had one­ly inserted the Kings of Ireland, as ours, from a vanity to be thought Ancient; it is more probable by the same Reason, that we would have improved it to a Story of twice forty Kings backwards. And why should the Doctor make us to have sisted in Fergusius Fortis rather, than in Fergu­sius Rogius, or Fergusius Denti-niger, both Kings in Ireland before Fergus the Second? 3. That there could be no Ground for our sisting in Fergu­sius fortis, is very clear: for he reign'd Anno Mundi 3775, whereas our Fergus began to Reign Anno Mundi 3641, and so we had lost 134 years of our Antiquity; and we should rather have fixed upon Hugonius Magnus, who began to Reign 3619. [Page 162] and consequently agreed with the true time of our Settlement, and there had been a more probable Conjecture from what is said in Ogygia, in the Reign of Reactus immediate Predecessour to Hugonius, in whose time it's said from the Manuscript of O-Duveganus, that one Ferc made a descent into Albania, and conquered it; and this Ferc might have been more probably said to have been Ferqhard, and so to have made way for the Settlementof Fer­gus his Son as King here.

The next step of this Conjecture is, that wherein O-Flahertie agrees with the Doctor, and O-Flahertie asserts, that all the Antiquaries of Scotland and Ireland agree, that our Kings are descended from Carbre Ried the Son of Conar the Second, who was King of Ireland. Which step is also ill founded. For 1. Though indeed we had a King called Conar (as we had but one Conar) yet here our Conar does not at all agree with the Irish Conar in time: For our Conar began to Reign in the Year of Christ 149, whereas the Irish Conar the Second began to [Page 163] Reign Anno Christi 212. So that here we had lost 63 years again of our An­tiquity. And the Conjecture from the Agreements in Names is very sil­ly, we being Neighbours, and speak­ing one Language; and Kings even in remoter Kingdoms use to give their Children, one another's Names 2. The other part of that Position, that we are all agreed, that our Kings are descended from Carbre Ried the Son of Conar, and that our Countrey is called Dalrieda from him, this is false: for we own our being called Dalreu­dini from King Reuda or Reutha, in which our Historians follow Beda's express words; and Rieda and Reutha differ much in time, Reutha having in Beda's opinion setled here before Iu­lius Caesar; whereas Carbre Rieda be­hov'd to be born long after that time, for his Father Conar Reigned onely 112 years after Christ. 3. We had no Carbres, who could be Sons to Conar the Second, for we had onely one Co­nar, and so no Conar the Second, and he was Posterior to both our Carbres; for Carbredus Galdus Reign'd in Anno 76, and Carbredus the Second reign'd [Page 164] in Anno 113, and so long Prior to the Reign of Conar in 212. 4. As to the Pretence, that Eochoid Ried, or Etdach Ried is the same with Car­bre Ried, and that our Genealogy had an Eochoid Ried Posterior to Co­nar; this is Groundless: for both our Genealogies, and the Irish have both Eochoids and Carbres, as di­stinct Names, nor do the Names appear the same any manner of way. 5. Though it might be pretended, that our Countrey was call'd Dal­rieda from a Countrey in Ireland, and not from Reutha; yet non con­slat, that it was so called from a Countrey call'd Dalrieda, and so from the Sirname of Ried; but from Araidh King of Ireland, seeing the same, O-Flahertie gives an account Pag. 165. 190. 327. of a King of Ulster called Fiachus Araidh, from whom also a Coun­trey 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, [Page 165] 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 Ogyg. p. 475. 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 [Page 166] 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, [Page 167] 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 [Page 168] 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 Chap. 5. pag. 282. 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 [Page 169] 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 [Page 170] 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 Praef. & Chap. 5. passim. 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 [Page 171] were peopl'd, and that they had suc­cessions of Kings time out of mind; Praef. p. 45, 46. 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 [Page 172] 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 [Page 173] I have said of it, I must add, that O-Flahertie Ogyg. p. 467. Verum aliquot de­sider at is Disti­chis, integrum A­pographum repe­rire non contigit; aliàs absolutum ex eo Catalogum contexere non du­bitaremus. 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 [...]osterior to their Annals. Which Argument is founded upon a false Supposition: for the Doctor himself Stillingfleet, chap. 5. p. 271. 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 [Page 174] 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 [Page 175] 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 Praef. p. 51. to be an old Chronicle; and Beda also acknowledges; that there was such a Monastery as Aber­corn. And though the Doctor cites Bu­chanan, Praef. p. 48. 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, [Page 176] 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 [Page 177] 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 [Page 178] 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. (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 [Page 179] 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 Still. chap. 1. p. 35. 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. [Page 180] 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 [Page 181] 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 Vid. Bul. in For­don, lib. 12. cap. 33. Second of England, ad declarandum [Page 182] indoctis, & rudibus populis Christianoe fidei veritatem, &c. whereupon they writ a Letter to Pope Iohn, wherein Fordon, ibid. 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 [Page 183] 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 [Page 184] 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 P. 348. 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 Lib. 4. cap. 26. 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 [Page 185] 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 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 [Page 186] is replied, that I have prov'd in my Lib. 3. cap. 27. 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 Lib. 1. cap. 37. 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 Lib. 1. de Scotia cap. 39. 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 [Page 187] 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, Lib. 4. cap. 22. 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 Voss. de Hist. Lat. lib. 3. 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 [Page 188] 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, Lib. 3. cap. 3. 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 oft­times 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 [Page 189] 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 [Page 190] 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 Cap. 5. p. 103, 104, 105., which he supposes with Usher to be then founded, and cites Bede Hist. 3. 5. pag. 171, 172. & 3. 5. p. 166. for his Voucher: and adds, that after Fi­rian's death, Colman succeeded in the Bishoprick, who was also sent from [Page 191] 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 Praef. p. 69. 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 [Page 192] 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 Scotiae propin­quum. Ex quibus patet quod ultima pars insulae Bri­tanniae versus Boream est Nor­thumbria. 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.

[Page 193] I add to these Paulus Diaconus, Epit. hist. Rom. p. 672. 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 Decr. 16. pag. 783. 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, Pag. 784. 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 [Page 194] 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 [Page 195] 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; Joh. Lomeierus de Bi­bliothecis, p. 149. Edit. 2. Ex Germaniâ transfreta­mus ad penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos, qui quidem literarum cognitionem diu ante Christi tempora habu­isse dicuntur: Anno enim an­te Christum natum 270. Dor­nadilla Maini silius, Scoto­rum Rex, praecepta venandi scriptis commisit, & subdi­tis suis servanda proposuit: quae leges & nostro adhuc seculo, seu sacrae, observan­tur. Fidem Christianam non postremi receperunt. Tertull. adv. Judaeos, cap. 7. Britannorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo vero subdita. Audiant hoc Ro­mani Pontificis Gnathones, qui ejus universalem Mo­narchiam in Ecclesiam quo­vis modo stabilire conantur. Britanni fidem acceperunt in illis locis quo Romanis adi­tus non patebat. Qui posset dari Episcopus universalis, cùm nullus unquam fuerit Monarcha politicus, qui sibi totum terrarum orbem sub­jecerit? Quamvis Romano­rum imperatores hac vanâ opinione inflatos Spiritus ges­serunt, ut se totius orbis Do­minos crederent, cùm sanè modicam ejus partem obtine­rent. 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 [Page 196] 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. And though it may be objected that he had this from our Histo­rians, yet it still proves that he and others be­lieve our Histo­rians. 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 [Page 197] 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 Lib. 16. Cap. 5. Bibliotheca Selecta, inserts among the Historians whom he recom­mends [Page 198] 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. [Page 199] Thus I hope I have sufficiently illu­strated this Subject, and therefore I am not resolved any farther, either to burthen it, or my Readers.