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 ...

CHAP. III. (Book 3)

What the Bishop of St. Asaph and Dr. Stillingfleet say against our Histories, from Fergus the first, examined.

THough I was not obliged to maintain our History be∣yond the Year 503. that being suf∣ficient to overturn the two Positions laid down by the Bishop, yet I think it fit and reasonable for me to exa∣mine also, what our two learned Adversaries say against our Histo∣ries in general, even as to these dark times, in which, neither our Neigh∣bours 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 Hi∣storical, not Mathematical, nor Le∣gal proofs. (2.) That we are onely maintaining our Origine to be from a Neighbour Nation, and very near

to the Age of Letters, and that there is nothing in this our Origine, either vain or fabulous, we neither deri∣ving our selves from Aegyptians, Gre∣cians 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, Mane∣tho, Suffridus and others, and par∣ticularly of their rejecting their own fabulous descent from Brutus, is abso∣lutely impertinent; there being no∣thing that can be alledged in our Hi∣story to contradict foreign Histo∣rians, 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 Histo∣ry 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 Coun∣trey, very much mis-represented, to say no worse at this time; And I

desire to know what Warrant Luddus, ou first Adversary, had for assert∣ing the descent from Brutus, and for his promising to prove it; and yet this Authour passes for a great Cri∣tick, and Camden states the debate betwixt Buchanan and him, as the debate betwixt a great Antiquary and a great Poet: Well decided in∣deed, and this is a great proof of Camden's being an impartial Anti∣quary, and since most of the old Eng∣lish Historians who wrote their ge∣neral 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 contra∣dict the whole Tract of the Roman story as ours do not. (3.) The Bi∣shop and the Doctor do both wrong us, very much, in observing, that all our Neighbour Nations have thrown out the old and fabulous be∣ginnings of their History, but that we still retain our ancient Fables, for a∣ny man that reads our History will see that most of our Historians have

omitted the old Irish Fables of Ga∣thelus 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 since∣rity, but of Craft: so nothing can stand in Judgment before such Cri∣ticks.

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 en∣cline to a Common-wealth as others have done: Rheuda is made a Scotish King by Beda, Galgacus by Tacitus, Donald by Baronius and the Eccle∣siastick

Historians, and all this be∣fore the Year 300. From Rheuda then to Fergus the first, are but by our Computation 130 years, and to what purpose should so many ho∣nest men have conspired, and a whole Nation have concurred so zealously, to maintain a Lye; so lit∣tle usefull, as the lengthning our An∣tiquity, for so short a time as 130 years? And though there were no∣thing 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 Na∣tion, and the race of Kings, of which men are very carefull: to for∣tifie which, I adduced Livius say∣ing, Per ea tempora rarae literae fue∣re, una custodia fldelis memoriae re∣rum gestarum, & quod etiamsi quae in commentariis Pontificum aliis{que} publicis privatisque erant monumen∣tis, incensâ urbe, plerae{que} periere. But because there is a debate be∣twixt the Doctor and me, concern∣ing the Translation of these words,

I urge from common Sense, that Oral Tradition was to be Livius's best Authority, in the beginning of his History, and in many things after∣wards; 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 memo∣rable

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 be∣fell the Family are remembred for two or three hundred years by ma∣ny 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 occasi∣ons of War, the considerable ex∣ploits and Strategemes done in them, and many other such matters of Fact, could onely be preserved by Tradi∣tion; for these were never Recorded in any Nation, and could have no Warrant save Oral Tradition, with∣out mentioning the Harangues, and such like Historical matters: so that Livie, as well as Boethius must have wanted flesh to fill Nerves to sup∣port it, and colour to adorn this History. (5.) Since the City, and

most of these Records were burnt, we have as great reason to doubt of their History as of Ours; for albeit we cannot now produce the warrants of them after Vastations as remarkable as their burning was, yet we have others who say they saw such Books, even as Dionysius Halicarnassius cites Antiochus Syracusanus, for whose Hi∣story no more is said by the said Dionysius, but that he took his Hi∣story 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 pro∣posed in my first Book for proving the truth of our Histories. Thus,

These Histories must be believed, and are sufficiently instructed, in which the Historians who writ them had sufficient Warrants, for what they wrote, and we have fiv•• or six Historians, men of untainted Reputation, who when they wrote

their Histories, declare that they wrote the same from Authentick Re∣cords and Warrants, which, being a matter of Fact, is sufficiently pro∣ved 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 Au∣thours 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, pro∣ving by my Method and Arguments, that St. Ignatius's Epistles are Ge∣nuine, 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 defe∣rence to the opinion of two such e∣mnent English Divines.

The Laws also of all Nations al∣low, 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 re∣markable occasions and sufficient rea∣sons, 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 in∣terested 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 fur∣nisht us both from our Records, and Monasteries: And so it were ridicu∣ous to think, that we abstracted

those vouchers upon design; especi∣ally seeing long after that, and till Luddus time, no Nation, nor Au∣thour, ever controverted our Histo∣ry; and I Challenge the Doctor to produce any such Authour, as cer∣tainly they would have done, if the matters of Fact had been either ri∣diculous in themselves, or inconsist∣ent 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 up∣on the probability of what our Hi∣storians 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 no∣thing can take off the strength of my Argument, except he either prove, that there could have been no such Warrants, and that what is related is in it self inconsistent with the History of other Nations, or that he had produced to us good Authours contemporary with these things which he denies, and we assert, and had shewed that these Authours

deny these Transactions, or deliver things inconsistent with them; nei∣of 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 al∣ledged to have been acted; to which it is answered, as formerly, that an Authour writing from sufficient Re∣cords, 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 Histo∣ry of the Reformation, should not be believed in the next Age though the Warrants of it were burnt, which is very possible; and had it not been great folly, and impudence, in five or six honest men to have separately written, that they and each of them had the said Records, when they wrote from them? And though the Doctor insinuates that this has been formerly done by one or two which he cites, yet there were not many concurring there, as here; and it is

a very different thing, for one Au∣thour 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 Na∣tion, that what they wrote was true from the Records which they had given them from Monasteries and other publick Records, and to ap∣peal to them as then extant: and certainly many would be very de∣sirous to see these Records in the time of the writing these Histo∣ries, especially seeing the first Histo∣rians who appear in Print have both Rivals, and Enemies, as well as cu∣rious Criticks, and the Monasteries themselves, and the Keepers of the pretended Records, could not but have known the Forgery, if any such had been. Or durst so many ingenious Men, though they had been careless of their Conscience, have trusted their Reputation in so nice and quick-sighted an Age, as that, wherein all of them wrote, to the discretion of so many who could have discover'd the Cheat? Nor do we

find, even from what the Doctor him∣self writes, that the single Testimony of these who pretend to have writ∣ten from Records, is rejected, ex∣cept where what they say is redar∣gued, as inconsistent with other un∣controverted Histories, and Au∣thours; or narrate things, in them∣selves 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 so∣lid, 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 e∣nough, to shew that they were in no Conspiracy: and this I hold as acknowledged, since the Doctor re∣turns no answer to it.

That there could be no sufficient Warrants for our History, from the

Annals of our Monasteries, is con∣tended, because the Monasteries themselves are much later than Fer∣gus 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 la∣ter, yet they might have Records as old as Fergus, for this is very pro∣bable 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 them∣selves out of which it is taken must be produced: My return to this is, that if bare Probability were onely∣proposed, 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 ex∣ception. And whereas, to over∣turn this, it is contended from the Irish Annals, that Fergus, whom we call the second, was our first King. To this I need say no more, but

that I proved in my former Book, that all the accounts which the Irish gave of our entry into this King∣dom, are inconsistent, and contra∣dictory one to another, and to which the Doctor has made no an∣swer, 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 Hi∣storians who speak of us, both without, and within the Isle; that we had Kings long before Fergus the second, and that we had even Christian Kings; and it is almost impossible, that our Monasteries could have been mistaken in that, or at least that they would not have condescended, who was the other Christian King, if Donald was not:

And at least, our Adversaries should be put to prove who was our First Christian King, or acquiesce in him whom we assign. And it is also very strange, that not onely we, but the Romish Church it self should be mistaken; they being very positive in concurring with us, whereas no o∣ther Nation nor Church condescends, as I have said, upon any other First Christian King, or Authours to prove it. And to conclude this Pe∣riod, I must say that it is wonder∣full, 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 Bal∣lads and Traditions of another Na∣tion, who have none of these ad∣vantages: 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 a∣ny 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, produ∣ced

to prove that Fergus the second was our first King; especially see∣ing they likewise concur with Beda in his Rheuda? Whereas the other contradict him, and that our Histo∣ries 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 Hi∣storians which are many, and very much esteemed over all Europe, should be overturned by the Autho∣rity of Rhimes, and rags of Histo∣ry, 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 un∣derstood as little their own Leagues, as they would have Rome to un∣derstand their own Conversion; or that all the Nations of Europe should have been mistaken, as to this pal∣pable Point.

I reflect not on the Publishers of the Manuscript of the Abbacy of Melros, printed at Oxford; for I ho∣nour 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 Coun∣treyman, so he must have been then our enemy; but however it begins not with Alpin, as the Doctor al∣ledges, though I mention that, be∣cause he is not mentioned in the Ox∣ford Edition: for it declares, that it is to continue where the Reverend Beda left, and so is a proof of our Nation, and History, from that time, and the differences of that from ours shall be printed, and I have at present printed these few. And though Buchanan had the Books

of Pluscardin and Pasley, yet it does not follow that therefore the best and most part of the Books of our Monasteries were not carried to Rome, or destroyed, and so cannot be recovered from Rome; and how can it be imagin'd, that those who burnt all our Magnificent Churches, would have spar'd a few Books, written by Monks, and which were so little esteem'd in those times a∣mongst 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 Ses∣sion, 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 probabi∣lity. And I hope it is uncontrover∣ted, 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 Lear∣ned

Doctor Pearson prove any other way the truth of St. Ignatius's Epi∣stles, than by producing the Testi∣monies of Origin and others, who have cited passages out of those Let∣ters, as Letters written by St. Igna∣tius, 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 consequen∣tia. (2.) We have nam'd other Au∣thours, 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 lear∣ned Manuscript written by Craig, which we have but lately recovered. (3.) Fordon cites not Veremund, though he cites many others; This is such another consequence, as if I

should argue against the Doctor, that Boethius cites not Fordon; ergo, Fordon never was. But I chuse ra∣ther 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 con∣ceal'd his Authour. (4.) Bishop Elphinstoun mentions him not; but to this I answer, that the Manu∣script 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 there∣fore he mentions not Veremund, be∣cause Fordon had not mentioned him, and it was very ordinary in those days, to write Epitomes of Fordon, some whereof are extant with us, and Boethius tells us that Elphinstoun never wrote an History,

but onely prepar'd some materials for one; and if he wrote a History, here is again another Historian, who being a devout and learned Bi∣shop, must be thought not to have written without sufficient warrants. Though then probabilities could overturn the deposition of Wit∣nesses, 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 Se∣cond; and that he confesses he knew not how long any of these Kings af∣ter Fergus reign'd; and from this al∣so 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 writ∣ten

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 Icolme∣kill, where Veremund's History was likewise kept. And it is clear, by Boethius's dedication to the King, that he thanked his Majesty for or∣dering that these should be delivered to him: and if the Doctor should at present write such another Dedica∣tion to the King, thanking him for letting him have the use of the Alex∣andrian MSS. of the Bible out of his Bibliotheque, could any man after∣wards 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 ac∣knowledg'd by the Doctor out of Livy, and asserted by me in my First Book. As to our Nation, from Pau∣lus Iovius, who was not interested in us, and consequently, it was no wonder that Fordon, who was but a mean Priest, could not have Vere∣mund and the other Warrants which

were necessary for filling up the History of our Kings, between the two Fergusses, which Boethius him∣self could not recover without the King's command, the Treasurer's assistance, and his own great ex∣pence 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 in∣terested 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 pre∣tended, because his History is prin∣ted 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 an∣swered, that Hector Boethius is ac∣knowledg'd to have had a better in∣vention, than to have forg'd so im∣probable a falsity, especially in a

thing he might have contriv'd as he pleas'd, and in which the honour of the Nation was not concern'd, and as to which, the King, Treasurer and Monks of Icolmekill could have controll'd him; but this is easily reconcil'd, without a miracle, for certainly Boethius was writing his History long before he got these Re∣cords, and doing what he could, as Fordon had done, without them before; and having at last got them, after the third message, Tertio Nun∣cio, which shews he was writing be∣fore, he might have easily added from the beginning through the whole Book, what was to be expec∣ted 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 suffi∣cient

proof of the Irish being obsti∣nate, and to despair of success, to return, and to die in a Countrey of the Picts all in one year: and St. Pa∣trick, who was not then present, but was in France, to have got the news of this death, to have formed the re∣solution, and to have gone to Rome, and prevail'd with the Pope to or∣dain 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. Edi∣tion the first, Bishop of St. Andrews, and so the calling him Archbishop af∣terwards could not have been igno∣rance 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, where∣as I plac'd him in Domitian's, and

sent a Copy so corrected, in print, to the Bishop of St. Asaph, and the half of our own printed Copies are right in this, but in the Second Edi∣tion, 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 Gentle∣man, as to understand Martial bet∣ter than I do: nor would I have in∣sisted 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 a∣mongst

other things tells us, that men lived so long in those days that they were able to transmit Histo∣rical Relations with much more cer∣tainty 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 pre∣serve their Histories with great ex∣actness, 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 His∣tories. And though what they pre∣serv'd is not to be believ'd with a Di∣vine belief, yet they ought to have an Historical one allowed them, es∣pecially since they are fortified by the probability of what they pre∣serv'd, and the concurrence of as much Roman History, as France or Spain can pretend to. Nor are the Citations from our old Laws to be contemn'd: for these at least might

have been preserved by practice, as Lycurgus's Laws. And it is unde∣niable that Skene, our famous Regi∣ster and Antiquary, did within these 100 years declare, He had old Ma∣nuscripts 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 Gover∣nours 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 Ma∣calpin Laws might not have been preserv'd, they being the founda∣tions of the Rights and Successions of our Kings. And therefore, as they were preserv'd with more care by us, they should have been at∣tack'd with less zeal by the Doctor, for his Monarch's sake, whose par∣tiality

I tax in this, and not his dis∣loyalty. And to conclude this pe∣riod, in opposition to the Doctor, I do think that the most fundamental of all Laws were in all Nations pre∣serv'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 con∣tend for it with a Divine, who seems here to be out of his sphere, and more dogmatical than his Pro∣fession will well allow. But why may not our Laws be as old as about 800 years; since Selden and Church∣hill tells us, that there are Laws yet extant in London, older than any the Romans had? And the Doctor's Raillery, that probably these Laws were in another Chest at Icolmekill with the MSS. which Boeth says Fergus brought from the sacking of Rome in the time of Alaric, to be contemn'd: for as great Criticks, as the Doctor, believe this to be true, as one may see by Morhosius's learn'd Book de Patavinitate Livianâ. From

this received Principle also I conclude justly, that since Lycurgus's Laws, and the old Laws of other Nations have been preserv'd, most of them without writing, and by mere Tra∣dition, why may not the same Tra∣dition 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 Tradi∣tions, are generally receiv'd, and ac∣knowledg'd, and founded on, by our severe Doctor, and Churchmen ought to be tender of them, because without these, Fanaticks and Secta∣rians might press them very much.

Another ground whereby I endea∣voured to render it probable that there were such Warrants as these declar'd to have been seen by our Historians, was, that what they de∣clar'd was probable, and ordinary, for our Countrey, and other Nor∣thern

Countries, as Ireland, and Domestick Historians call'd Sana∣chies, and Bards, who as Poets preserv'd their Histories. This Va∣raeus observes in Ireland, and Powell in Wales. * 1.1 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, ex∣cept in their service: and so in re∣membring their own Genealogies and Actions, could not omit to re∣cord those of their Kings. And Li∣vie, in the place cited, † 1.2 tells us, that the Histories of Private Fami∣lies 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, ex∣cept in opposition to Luddus his u∣sing them as proofs of these positions onely, that are inconsistent with the Roman Contemporary, and other Histories. And in so far I acknow∣ledge

they ought not to be received; but that cannot be alledged against us.

I urg'd also that it was very pro∣bable, that we had ancient Writ∣ten Histories; because we had the Druids amongst us who were Priests under Paganism, and they are ac∣knowledged by Caesar to have had the use of Letters. And though Cae∣sar does observe that they were a∣verse from consigning to Letters the Mysteries of their Religion, yet it does not follow that therefore they us'd them not, in preserving the me∣mory 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 * 1.3. But with∣out the other, Letters had been al∣together useless: for in what could they have employed them, if not in this? And since Caesar † 1.4 is positive, that they us'd the Graecian Letters,

in privatis publicisque rationibus, what can be meant by publicae ra∣tiones, 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 diffi∣culty how the Druids could have preserv'd their Chronology in these Ancient Times, I answer from Pli∣ny, who tells, that they numbred time by the course of the Moon, and not of the Sun * 1.5: which proves, that very anciently they used Chro∣nology. Nor does it follow, that be∣cause some of the Druids are said to have oppos'd the conversion of their People to Christianity, therefore o∣thers of them were not zealous for their conversion: even as though the Ancient Philosophers were gene∣rally severe Opposers of the settle∣ment of Christianity, yet many of them, when converted, were emi∣nent Lights in their time. And therefore I may conclude, that since it is very probable, that our Prede∣cessours would be curious to pre∣serve the Names of their first Kings,

and the way of their first settlement: and since they had Letters wherein these might have been preserved: therefore it is probable that they were accordingly preserved. And that these Traditions and Records, as well as the Histories of Private Families relating these were con∣signed to the custody of the Mona∣steries with us, as elsewhere. So that since four or five Worthy His∣torians 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 al∣lowed in an Historical one, quod e∣rat probandum.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Antiquit. Hi∣bern. c. 5.
• † 1.2

  Praef. p. 28.
• * 1.3

  De Antiq. Hi∣bern. c. 5.
• † 1.4

  De Bell. Gal. l. 6.
• * 1.5

  L. 17. c. ult.