The antiquity of the royal line of Scotland farther cleared and defended, against the exceptions lately offer'd by Dr. Stillingfleet, in his vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph by Sir George Mackenzie ...

The Antiquity of the Roy∣al Line of Scotland farther cleared and defended, a∣gainst the Exceptions late∣ly offered by Dr. Stilling∣fleet, in his Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph. (Book 1)

CHAP. I. (Book 1)

KING Iames, having in his Basilicon Doron, p. 201. foun∣ded his Royal Prerogative upon King Fergus's having made himself King and Lord, as well of the whole Lands, as of the Inhabi∣tants of Scotland; and King Charles the First, having in a Letter to his Parliament, An. 1641. founded that kindness, which he expected from the Scots, upon this; that they and

their Predecessours were Sworn to maintain that Race of their Kings which he now represented, after 108 Descents: I leave it to all indif∣ferent 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 kind∣ness of their Subjects: And since pre∣cedency is one of the chief glories of the Crown, and that for this, not one∣ly Kings, but Subjects fight and de∣bate; 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 eviden∣ces for these also, which may not be quarrel'd, if our Adversaries be al∣low'd to reject what is here contro∣verted;

consequentially to which, Ubbo Emmius, magnified by the Doc∣tor, has brought down their Anti∣quity to Kenneth the Third: and since nothing can be answered to these grounds, which I may con∣clude, 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 Monar∣chy: I admire how Dr. Stillingfleet could adventure to continue the de∣bate, especially after a whole Parlia∣ment of zealous Episcopal members, (and wherein there did sit 14 Bi∣shops) had unanimously, after ma∣ny 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 Loy∣alty.

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

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 con∣sequence reject the proofs▪ that can be produced for them, and he does so indeed with much scorn and gay∣ety; nor can he prove our Kings to be descended from Fergus the Se∣cond, 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 Ad∣vocate, 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 com∣mon Kings, though I qualified this

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 al∣low, 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 to∣gether; and this being the Preface of his own Origines Britannicae, * 1.1 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 Cri∣tick, for else he would not have un∣dertaken 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,

who could manage so weighty mat∣ters; making it thus great Insolen∣cy 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 u∣sing them without considering first their full import, and remotest con∣sequences, 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

in my answer to Buchanan's Ius Reg∣ni, deny'd that any respect was due to arguments brought from our Hi∣stories, to prove his Republican Prin∣ciples, 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. Stil∣lingfleet as firm a friend to the power and interest of Kings, as I have been, though I think he gives no great e∣vidence of it, in urging unnecessari∣ly 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 re∣flecting 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 Consci∣ence.

But to the point: I must remem∣ber our Readers, that Buchanan ha∣ving urged against the absolute pow∣er of our Kings, that they were li∣mited by a contract betwixt King Fergus and the People; my Answers

were, that first this Contract was de∣ny'd, and a History may be true, though some points be foisted in up∣on design, else few Histories are true; and this is Dr. Heylin's Doc∣trine as well as mine. (2.) That Fordon, whom they call our first Hi∣storian, 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 Bucha∣nan, Boethius (as our adversaries con∣tend) they must be all regulated by Fordon's Loyalty. (3.) That if Boe∣thius 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 with∣out contract, before Fergus, whose reign I assert not there, though I use it justly against such as object that Tradition as Argumentum ad ho∣minem. (4.) These limitations being found inconsistent with the safety of King and People (as indeed all limitations are) they were re∣peal'd by express Laws in the Reign

of King Kenneth the Third, and by many and clear posteriour Statutes, founded upon sad▪experience: And if such Limitations could be intro∣duc'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 friend∣ship I will not now name. And as to the instance brought from our Hi∣stories, to prove that the People de∣pos'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 Bi∣shop of St. Asaph's own opinion, and had justly defamed my Book amongst my own Countreymen. And how should we acknowledge this to be a

peculiar guilt in our Historians, ex∣cept we deny the truth of all English Histories since William the Conquerour's time: Because they mention Limitations extorted from their Kings; murthers commit∣ted 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, a∣gainst our Historians who deserve much less to be taxt than his own Friends, for their ill founded concep∣tions of the rights of Monarchs in those days; and to reform which, I have been somewhat more instru∣mental 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-in∣teressed Critick, I must observe, that he ingenuously confesses that he

ow'd so much service to so worthy * 1.2 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 no∣thing 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 con∣clude that if he, though a Church∣man, thought himself concerned in honour to own his Friend, albeit an Aggressour; I as a King's Advocate may be more justly allow'd to own our Kings when attacked unjustly, and unnecessarily, by their own Sub∣jects, and Beneficiaries; And though it may be instanced, that the anti∣quity of the Royal-line has been controverted in other Nations, yet it cannot be instanced that this has been done by Subjects, after their Kings and Parliaments have seriously founded the Loyalty of the Nation upon that antiquity, and the Kings

have asserted that antiquity under their own hands, upon so solemn occasions, which is our case, and where the antiquity it self is not ab∣solutely fabulous; but on the con∣trary, is in it self so reasonable, and is warranted by the Testimonies of contemporary Historians, and allow∣ed by the most judicious Criticks.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Praef. p. 3d.
• * 1.2

  Praef. pag. 72.