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. IV. (Book 4)

Our Authours vindicated in the ac∣counts they give of the Genealogy of our Kings.

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 Boe∣thius did insert many things con∣trary to the account of the Genea∣logy 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 * 1.1 concerning them; though he cites se∣veral Chronicles; and though For∣don mentions an old High Land Gen∣tleman, a Genealogist, who gives an * 1.2

account of the first Line betwixt the two Ferguses; yet the Genealo∣gy by him given differs from that, which is owned by Boeth and Bu∣chanan, both in the number, and in the names of our Kings. And this is alledged to have been done of pur∣pose, 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 extend∣ed the first Line, doth as much shorten the second Line, betwixt Fergus the Second and Alexander the Third; whereof the Doctor endea∣vours 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 Ge∣nealogy 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 there∣fore the Doctor is as culpable in

shortning the Royal Line, as the Bishop of St. Asaph. He adds also, * 1.3 that Fordon mentions another Ge∣nealogy 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 Genea∣logy from St. David to Fergus the second, being corrupted before For∣don's time, he would not have it stand in Record against his History, but cut it off with an &c. from Da∣vid 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 some∣what perplexed. But the Doctor takes notice of a third Genealogy in For∣don, which supplies, in some measure, the defects of that of King David, and it is the Succession of Kenneth,

the first Monarch of Scotland; and there he takes notice of the diffe∣rence betwixt the Genealogy and our Historians. For he acknow∣ledgeth 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 be∣twixt Fergus and Kenneth, whereas our Historians make twenty eight.

In Answer to this objection, I shall follow the method of the High∣land 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 be∣twixt 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

we shall make an Imaginary di∣stinction 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 dif∣fered 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 con∣cerning them, as appears by the words cited by the Doctor himself; Sed & horum Sigillatim distinguere * 1.4 tempora principatuum ad praesens o∣mittimus, 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

Fergus's Father and Grand-father, and some other three Collaterals o∣mitted 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 ex∣pected 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 par∣ticular 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 For∣don himself had found nothing par∣ticular 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 considera∣ble * 1.5 Persons, as Fergus, Reuther, Eu∣genius; so he distinguisheth their

times, and tells how long the whole Kings reigned, and gives Disticks con∣taining the Periods of their Reigns:

Albion in terris Rex primus ger∣mine Scotus Illorum turmis rubri tulit arma Leonis Fergusius fulvo Ferchard rugientis in arvo, Christum trecentis tricenis prae∣fuit annis.

And in the place cited by the Doctor, he asserts, that the forty five Kings were ejusdem generis & gentis, * 1.6 and Fergus's return is set down:

Ad natale solum properat relevare jacentes, Rex fessos regni cespite sospes adit: Intrepidus propria pandens vexilla Leonis, Terruit occursu quem fera nulla ferox. Ocyus advenit, fuerat quae turbine diro Subdita plebs X quater & tri∣bus haec

Congaudens patrio [Regi servire, parata Ad libertatem quicquid in orbe volat.

And again, Fergusius universas Regni regiones, cis citraque vadum Scoticum à patribus ab antiquo pos∣sessas, de muro lapideo, viz. & Inch∣gaell ad Insulas Orcadas sub sua com∣posuit 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 ac∣count 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 Histo∣rians mention all that did Reign, whether by Right or by Usurpation, or whether in the Direct or Collate∣ral Line; the Genealogist doth as∣cend from Alexander the Third from Son to Father in the direct Line,

considering that Line onely, where∣of 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 men∣tioned by our Historians, is omitted, and Henry placed for him. But this was very reasonable: for St. David * 1.7 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 mar∣ried, 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 Hun∣tingtoun, the third Brother by the Families of Bruce and Stuart, the Royal Race is continued in a direct Line till King Iames the Seventh, who now Reigns. So then, if the Genealogist had said, that William was Son to his Brother Malcolm the

Maiden, and not Son to Henry his Father, instead of agreeing with our Histories, he had both contra∣dicted them and common Sense and Reason.

The Doctor next complains, that betwixt Malcolm, Canmore and St. David four of our Kings are omit∣ted, and, we say, very justly for the same Reason: for Donald the Se∣venth 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 ha∣ving no Children of their own, the Succession did devolve upon St. Da∣vid the youngest Son.

The third Objection is, that be∣twixt * 1.8 Duncan, and Malcolm Can∣more the Historians put Machaboeus, whom the Genealogist omits, and very reasonably: for he was a Col∣lateral by Dovada Second Daughter to Malcolm the Second, and usurped the Succession before Malcolm Can∣more, who was Son of Duncan. and was great Grand-child to Malcolm

the Second by his eldest Daughter Beatrix, whom the Genealogist in∣serts, 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 thir∣teen; viz. Donald the Fifth, Constan∣tine Second, Ethus Sirnamed Ali∣pes, Gregory the Great, Donald the Sixth, Constantine the Third. Mal∣colm the First, Indulphus, Duffus, Culenus, Kenneth the Third, Con∣stantine the Fourth, Grimus. Here in∣deed 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 Me∣mory 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 partia∣lity, or that they inserted these Kings to serve their own ends: For even the Doctor's worthy Antiqua∣ries Ubbo Emmius and Boxhornius,

who have deserved so well of him, because they are most injuriously extravagant; as to the Antiquity of our Kings, do admit the truth of this Genealogy, after Kenneth who subdued the Picts. There are four indeed here omitted in the direct Line; Constantine the second Son to Kenneth the Second, Donald the Sixth, Malcolm the First, Kenneth the Third, Malcolm the Second's Fa∣ther: 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, Indul∣phus 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 mi∣stake of the Genealogist in this place. We see that it is twice Kenneth and Malcolm; Kenneth the Second and Malcolm the First, and Kenneth the Third, who was Father to Malcolm

the Second. The Transcriber hath thought, he had transcribed the First Kenneth and Malcolm, and Constan∣tine, and Donald that were betwixt them, and so hath omitted them, and proceeded to Kenneth the Third, who was Father to Malcolm the Se∣cond. 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 omit∣ted Kings, and there is also a parti∣cular Genealogy of them subjoyn'd to the end of Fordon's Book in the Genealogy of King Iames the Se∣cond. And if any man make a Hi∣story 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 Don∣gallus; and very reasonably, because Convallus was Fergus's third Son,

and Dongallus was Solvathius's Son, and so Collateral, to shew the ex∣actness of our Historians, as well in * 1.9 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 diffe∣rence betwixt the Genealogist and our Historians, from King Othabin Son of Aydan, whom Fordon calls Ethodius bind, and our Historians, Eugenius (a Grand difference in∣deed) 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 tran∣scribing with the former: for the Genealogist, betwixt Eugenius the Seventh, (whom he calls Ethac) and Donald Braik, he omits Dongard, Eugenius the Fifth; and Fordon's

Genealogy of Kenneth the Great, to Fergus the Second, mentions Dongard, but omits Eugenius and Findan. Which errour of the Wri∣ter seems to have proceeded, because there are two of the name of Eu∣genius 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 Fin∣dan, because they were not so well known, as never having been Kings. But the mistake cannot be interpret∣ed 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 hap∣pily out, where our Antiquity is not questioned by any but by Ubbo Emmius, and Boxhornius. For even Iocelin and St. Asaph do acknow∣ledge 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 Ori∣ginal * 1.10 of the Settlement of the Scots in Britain under Aydan, in the be∣ginning

of the Seventh Century; but is uncertain, if, or how much lon∣ger 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 Fer∣chard the First, Malduine eldest Son to Donald Braik, Eugenius the Sixth Ferchard's second Son, Amberkele∣thus Findan's eldest Son, Murdach his Son, Eugenius the Eighth and Sol∣vathius, 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 Et∣fin or Ethafind. But I cannot re∣mark, that the Genealogist calls E∣thafind Son to Ethdre, but he calls him Son to Ethachi; or that the Genealogist calls Eugenius Ethac. Indeed the Genealogist calls him

Ethachi, whom Fordon in the Ge∣nealogy of Kenneth calls Eugenius. But these are idle remarks. His Ob∣jection betwixt Fergus the Second and Eugenius the Fourth is, that the Genealogist makes Dongall to suc∣ceed Fergus, and, leaves out Euge∣nius 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 Eugeni∣us. And there are left out from a∣mongst 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 el∣dest Son, because he did not conti∣nue 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 Ge∣nealogist, as if Conranus and Cobre∣nus might not pass for one.

Against the first Race, his Ob∣jections are much lighter, and so I shall not be so special in giving An∣swer. His noticing the difference of names is very pretty, betwixt Arnidal and Dornadill, Rowen and Rether, not Nothatus, as the Doc∣tor 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 Daradia∣more for Dardanus, and that Corbre's Sirname of Galdus was forgot; and Luthach for Lugtacus, and Mo∣galama for Mogallus, and Coner for Conarus, Ethach for Ethodius, and Fiachrach for Satrahell, and Athir∣kin for Athirco, Findachar for Fin∣dochus, 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 En∣gusafich and Etheat for Eugenius and Ethodius, Erthus for Eirch. And

so to have named this Objection is to refute it, being the difference one∣ly 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 Fla∣hertie in his Preface for a fuller An∣swer. But Feritharis and King Do∣nald, the first Christian King, and Nathalocus, and other two Donalds are excluded by this ancient Genea∣logists; and very reasonably, be∣cause Feritharis was Brother to King Fergus the First; and Donald, because he was Brother to Sa∣trael. Nathalocus was an Usurper, concerning whose Contingency of bloud, our Historians generally make no mention; all the Collate∣rals proved by Boeth * 1.11, Buchanan † 1.12 and Lesly ‖ 1.13. And the Doctor him∣self in his Preface acknowledgeth, that Nathalocus and Donald were Usurpers, and so could not be men∣tioned in the Genealogy of the right

Line; Donald the Third called of the Isles, an Usurper, and Donald the Second Brother to Findoch. And what though the Genealogist by mi∣stake 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 Er∣rour 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, Alje∣lah, Even, Ederskeoli, Comermore. It seems, the Doctor hath taken this at second hand; for if he had looked either the Genealogy of King Alex∣ander or King David, he would have found Fin, which is the same with Finnanus. But the Doctor might have known, that such a small

difference in names and numbers doth not overthrow the verity of a Genealogy from his Friend Flahertie in his Epistle to Io. Linceus, who takes the name of Lucius Gratianus in Cambr. evers. as in the Genealogy of the Scripture Cainan is interpo∣sed betwixt Arphaxad and Sala, who tells, that such like Errours may pro∣ceed 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 High∣land and Lowland Language, where∣in Alexander is called Alaster, and Archibald Gillespie, Gillus was a Ba∣stard Usurper, and Evenus a Collate∣ral to Durstus, as appears by our Historians Boeth, Buchanan and Lesly. As to the Genealogy of St. David, it is subjoyn'd immediately to Bal∣dredus his Lamentation about him; and, whether it be his, or Cardinal Wardlaw's, it furnisheth still ano∣ther ancient and more credible Au∣thour, a Cardinal. But perhaps he

was not Cardinal, when he told Fordon the Genealogy, but there∣after, 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 Archidia∣conus of Lothian, and Secretary to King David the Bruce, as ap∣pears by the * 1.14 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 Glo∣rious 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 E∣nemies as had invaded them.

Post Britones, Dacos, Pictos, An∣glósque repulsos, Viriliter Scoti jus tenuere suum; Et Romanorum spreverunt vim validorum, Exemplo quorum pensarunt prae∣terit rum Inclyta Scotorum proles laudem genitorum.

This doth not agree with the Doctor's Origin of us after the Saxons, and our dependence upon them. This Wardlaw Bishop of Glasgow is design'd in Scotichronicon Cardinal of Scotland and Ireland, and the account and Verses appear to be far ancienter, than either Wardlaw or Fordon, otherwise For∣don had hardly ever cited the Rela∣tion of one Contemporary with himself, and of one who was per∣haps 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 esta∣blishing the Regents, and incapacita∣ting 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 al∣beit many Murthers and Encroach∣ments were committed upon these Kings of the first Race, their times being more barbarous, what is that to the purpose? Were they there∣fore

never in being, or not Kings? Doth not Flahertie tell us, that of the first hundred thirty six Kings of Ireland; Centum ferrum sustulit, sep∣temdecim 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 mur∣thered Edward the Fifth and his Bro∣ther, who were his own Nephews, and usurped the Crown? And the inserting these, to lengthen the Line in favour of Regents had been ri∣diculous: for by a clear Law these were cut off in Kenneth the Third's time; and so our Historians need∣ed not the help of forged Genealo∣gies 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

Bishop of St. Asaph hath done. And the Doctor ought to have remem∣bred, that I did undertake onely to maintain the Antiquity of our Royal Line at the least; to refute the Bi∣shop 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 ac∣counts given of the Genealogies of our Kings are so far from Contra∣dicting our History, that they agree with it, and being inserted in three several Genealogies, prior to For∣don, and being exprest by them up∣on very solemn occasions they do fortifie much the truth of the Ge∣nealogy of the Royal Line, and that Fordon did not dream the same, but inserted these Genealogies in his Hi∣story from good Authours and by good Authority.

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

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 Colla∣terals, 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 U∣surpers; 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 Se∣cond, after which, the Irish and o∣thers acknowledge our Historical Genealogy; or after Kenneth the Second, since which time even

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 Tran∣scriber's negligence; and I have con∣descended upon a probable Ground of mistake.

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

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

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

VIII. To illustrate farther the whole matter, I have subjoyned the Tree of Alexander the Third his

Predecessours, both in the Direct and Collateral Line, whereby it doth evidently appear, that all his Prede∣cessours mentioned by the Genea∣logist were in the direct Line, and that these Kings of whom the Ge∣nealogist 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 Se∣venth, who now Reigns.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pref. p. 5.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.3

  Lib. 5. cap. 60.
• * 1.4

  Which is not Lib. 4. but l. 3.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 2. c. 12. 13. ••••. and lib. 3. ••. ••••. Et in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Recapitu∣latione.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 3. c. 1.
• * 1.7

  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.
• * 1.8

  Ford. lib. 5. at the beginning. Maj. lib. 3. c. 5. Boeth. lib. 12. Buch. l. 7. Les••. l. 5.
• * 1.9

  Ford. lib. 3, & 4. Maj. lib. 3. Boeth. lib. 8, 9, 10. Buch. lib. 5.
• * 1.10

  Chap. 5.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 2. 5, & 6. L. 4.
• † 1.12

  Lib. 2. & 3.
• ‖ 1.13

  Pag. 10.
• * 1.14

  Lib. 14. cap: 27.