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. V. (Book 5)

The Irish Genealogy of our Kings com∣pared with the accounts given by the Chronicle of Melross, and both compared with the Genealogies con∣tained in our Histories; with a full proof, that our Historians are to be preferred to the Irish Annals as to this point: Ogygia exa∣min'd.

I Having urg'd, that our Histo∣rians were to be believed in mat∣ters of fact, such as are the Genea∣logies of our Kings, they being ma∣ny, and Men of Authority; and ha∣ving declared, that they extracted their Histories from Authentick Re∣cords, 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.

The Doctor did therefore urge the inconsistency of our Genealogies a∣mongst 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 An∣nals than ours; which I am to an∣swer 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 ano∣ther History, except that other His∣tory 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 * 1.1

the Eleventh Century, which is long after the time, wherein both the Bi∣shop of St. Asaph and he acknow∣ledges 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 War∣rants the Irish had within six Gene∣rations of Iaphet? Especially to warrant them, not onely to conde∣scend upon particular actions, men∣tioned, and adminiculated by no o∣ther Histories, but even to be spe∣cial in the coming of some from Ire∣land, * 1.2 just 40 days before the Floud. And that Partholanus, and others, * 1.3 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

2000 years after that time, when the Romans, who lived long in our Neighbourhood, in France, and fought long with us, are acknow∣ledged to have had the use of Let∣ters, 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 o∣ther Nation can doe; nor should any man debate with these that

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 Cata∣logue calls him Fergusius Magnus, a title never given to him who founds, but to him who augments the Mo∣narchy. 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; espe∣cially 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 suc∣ceeded to Domangardus, but we make Constantine the First to have

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 Ayda∣nus 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.

The Genealogy as in our Histories from Fergus II. to Murdoch.	The Genealogy as in the Irish from Loarn to Murdoch.
Fergus II.	Loarn eldest Son, and
Eugenius II. eldest Son,	Fergusius Magnus second Son to Erik,
Dongardus the second Son of Fergus the Second.	Domangardus Son to Fergusius.
Constantine I. third Son, all three Sons of Fergus II.	Congallus Domangardus's Son.
Congallus I. Dongard's Son,	Gauranus Congallus's Brother.
Goranus Dongard's Son.	Conallus Congall's Son.
Eugenius III. Congallus's Son.	Aidanus Gauran's Son.
Congallus II. Congallus's Son.	Acbaius I. Aydan's Son.
Kinnatellus Congallus's Son.	Conadius Achaius's Son.
Aidanus Goranus's Son.	Ferqhardus I. Conadius's Son.

Kennethus I. Convallus's Son.	Danaldus I. Brother to Ferqhard.
Eugenius IV. Aidanus's Son.	Conallus II. Achaius's Son.
Ferchardus I. Eugenius's Son.	Dungallius I. Donald Brec's Son.
Donald IV. Eugenius's 2d. Son.	Donaldus II. Conallus's Son.
Ferchard II. Ferchard's Son.	Malduinus Conallus's Son.
Malduinus Donald's Grandchild by Dongard no King.	Ferqhardus II.
Eugenius V. Donald's Son.	Achaius II. Grandchild of Do∣nald I. by his Son Dongard.
Eugenius VI. Ferchard's Son.	Amberkelethus Son of Ferqhard II.
Amberkelethus Findan's Son, who was Son to Eugenius.	Selvathus Brother to Amberkele∣thus.
Eugenius VII. Brother to Am∣berkelethus.	Achaius III. Son of Achaius II.
And then Murdachus Amberkele∣thus's Son.	Muridachus Son of Amberkele∣thus.

So that, comparing. Flahertie's ac∣count with ours, we shall find them to differ in names, the times of their Reign, and Degrees of their Con∣sanguinity, 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 ac∣knowledged to be setled, and to have had a distinct Kingdom from Ire∣land, and to have had the learned Monastery of Icolmkill, from which Swarms of learned Men were sent to all places; But especially to

the Saxons in Lindesfarne, to whom Aidan, Finan and Colman were sent Bishops, as St. Asaph and Flahertie ac∣knowledge. 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 judg∣ed 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 com∣paring the three, in so far as concerns the Genealogies of our Kings, from Murdachus, to Kenneth the Second.

By our Histories and Genealo∣gies, Murdachus was Son to Amber∣kellethus, and began to Reign Anno Christi 715, whereas by the Chro∣nicle of Mailross he is made the Son of Ewam as he was indeed Successour

to Ewam, or Eugenius his Uncle, * 1.4 though not his Son, and he is called Murizant, and he is said there to be∣gin his Reign Anno 741. But by the Irish Catalogue of the Scotish Kings in Ogygia, his Reign is said to * 1.5 begin Anno 733.

By our History, Etfinus, Son to Eugenius, begun his Reign Anno 730. By the Chronicle, Ewen, Son to Mu∣rizant, Anno 744. By the Catalogue, Dongallus Son of Selvachus, is said to succeed his Cousin German Mur∣dachus, Anno 736. Whereas Don∣gallus 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, suc∣ceeded to Ewen, Anno 747. By the Catalogue Achaius the Fourth suc∣ceeded to Dongall, Anno 743, and Offlahartie the Authour of the Cata∣logue subjoyns to this King an ob∣servation, that in divers Copies of this Poem or Catalogue. Selvachus, A∣chaius the Third, Achaius the Fourth,

and Achaius the Fifth, and Gregory are wanting; which shews, of how small Authority this Poem or Cata∣logue should be: for Achaius and Gregory are two of the most consi∣derable, and uncontroverted of all our Kings in these Periods. For A∣chaius did make the League with Charlemain, and is mentioned in many Histories beside ours. And Gregory lived after the time of Ken∣neth 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 acknow∣ledged by the Chronicle of Mail∣ross. But the secret and true Reason of this suggestion is, that he might obviate the objection from the dif∣ference of the number, and suppress Achaius, because they will have the League not to be made with him, but with the Irish; and Gregory, be∣cause he invaded Ireland. O! How witty are these Contrivances?

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, cor∣rupted Ethfinn, succeeded to Achaius the Fourth his Father, Anno 748. whereas truly Achaius was not Fa∣ther to Etfin; but Etfin was Father to Achaius.

According to the Ca∣talogue there are nine Kings without any special Chronology from 778 to 838; viz.	Our Kings from Fer∣gus 3 to Kenneth 2, are by our Histories.	According to the Chronicle of Mail∣ross.
Donall III.	Solvathius.	Selvand.
Conall III.	Achaius.	Eokall.
Conall IV.	Congallus.	Dungall.
Constantine I.	Dongallus.	Alpine the Son of Eo∣kall, which shews that Eokall was Achaius, and then
Aeneas.	Alpinus and then	Kined Son to Alpin.
Aidus II.	Kenneth II.
Eugemanus Aeneas Son.
Achaius fifth Son of Aidus.
Alpine the Son of A∣chaius, and then Ken∣neth Alpine's Son.

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

differ from us, but also from the Chronicle of Mailross, which seems to have been written by some Eng∣lish Borderers, who though they have somewhat carelesly observed what was doing among us; yet be∣cause of their Neighbourhood and Commerce, have understood the same better than the Irish.

It's likewise observable, that by Collationing that Period of the Ge∣nealogy 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, be∣ing 653 years for 46 Kings, which is far more probable in it self, and more agreeable to the Doctor's obser∣vation, who allows twenty five years * 1.6 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 ob∣jected against Hector Boethius, that he augmented the number of our

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 Cata∣logue, 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 joy∣ned with the Collaterals, had made the number of our Kings in that Period to have come near to an hun∣dred, and thus each King to have had about six years allow'd him.

I had not fully considered the Irish Genealogies when I insisted up∣on that Argument from Carbre Li∣fachair, 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

is proved he lived an hundred years; but I confess the Doctor's Calculati∣on 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 en∣tred into with Charles the Sixth in the Year 1380, which fell in the * 1.7 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

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 Per∣sons 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 uncontra∣vertable for these Reasons:

1. The French Historians acknow∣ledge 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,

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 * 1.8 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 Confedera∣cies and Leagues, à longo tempore, inter Praedecessores nostros Reges fir∣matae & 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 * 1.9 Iohn Baliol (then pretended King of Scotland) refused to joyn with

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 Se∣cond, 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 con∣fess, that he called our Countrey Scotia) mentions, that Anno 1070, the Scots and French wasted the English: Which shews, that this Al∣liance was much elder, than either the 1425, or the 1380, as O Flaher∣tie asserts: And therefore, that ex∣cellent Historian the Sieur Varillas * 1.10 relates, that Charles the Fifth's Go∣vernour did advise him not to ex∣pect, that the King of Scotland would enter into his Interests, because the Alliance of that Nation with the

French had lasted seven hundred Years, without interruption, from King to King, before that time. And by these we may see, what a just Au∣thour 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 Rea∣ders to believe, that we are mista∣ken * 1.11 in the Genealogies of our own Kings, pretends that the true Reason of the mistake of the Scotish Anti∣quities was, that we finding, that there was a Fergus in the Irish Ge∣nealogy called Fortis or Fortamalius, who Reigned truly in 3775, and that in the descent of that Fergus there was a Conar; and from him

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 apply∣ing the Irish Genealogy to the Kings of Scotland, and that we ei∣ther imagined, or would have others believe, that all the Kings mention∣ed 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 Con∣jecture, as to Fergus; and O-Fla∣hertie,

who pretends that he under∣stands * 1.12 the differences betwixt the Descents and the Reasons thereof, goes no higher than Conar the Se∣cond. And speaking twice of Fer∣gusius * 1.13 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 Ge∣nealogy of our Kings, but had one∣ly 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 Fergu∣sius Rogius, or Fergusius Denti-niger, both Kings in Ireland before Fergus the Second? 3. That there could be no Ground for our sisting in Fergu∣sius 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.

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 Fer∣gus 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

Reign Anno Christi 212. So that here we had lost 63 years again of our An∣tiquity. And the Conjecture from the Agreements in Names is very sil∣ly, we being Neighbours, and speak∣ing 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 Dalreu∣dini 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 Iu∣lius Caesar; whereas Carbre Rieda be∣hov'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 Co∣nar, 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

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 Car∣bre Ried, and that our Genealogy had an Eochoid Ried Posterior to Co∣nar; this is Groundless: for both our Genealogies, and the Irish have both Eochoids and Carbres, as di∣stinct Names, nor do the Names appear the same any manner of way. 5. Though it might be pretended, that our Countrey was call'd Dal∣rieda from a Countrey in Ireland, and not from Reutha; yet non con∣slat, 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 * 1.14 of a King of Ulster called Fiachus Araidh, from whom also a Coun∣trey in Ulster is call'd Dalaradia and Dalriadia, and the Inhabitants Dalaradii. And this King Araidh was also after Conar: For he began to reign Anno 240. And as it was more honourable to have a Countrey called after Reuda a Scotish King,

than from Araidh, who was but a King of Ulster, and so one of the Kings of a Province in Ireland; so it is yet more dishonourable, to have our glorious Monarch, who now Reigns, descended from Car∣bre 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 Au∣thours 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 * 1.15 our Kings, even till the 590, were but Dynasties, Tributaries and Sub∣jects to the Kings of Ireland, and that Aidanus got an Exemption from paying Tribute at the Parliament of Dromcheat; where he appeared. And the Doctor does great Honour to our King in following such Authours, and rather to follow

them, than the venerable Beda.

The Bishop of St. Asaph has a dif∣ferent 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 irreconcila∣ble 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 Se∣cond, though there be a difference in the rest of the Line, from Carbre to Fergus, our Historians making this Line to consist of thirteen Per∣sons, and theirs of ten. But against this last Period it is represented, That the small Agreement in this step, as to the Names of Father and Grandfather of Fergus, with their residence in Ireland, the Grandfather having been expell'd from Scotland,

and fled to Ireland, when King Eu∣genius was killed by the Romans un∣der 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 Settle∣ment 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 Fa∣ther (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 Mal∣colm the Third, they allow onely 554 years. And from the reflexion it is also more probable, that there

were thirteen in this Period, and that Conar began to reign in the Year 149, and Fergus the Second in the Year 404, as our Historians assert.

To all these I add the irreconcila∣ble differences amongst the Irish Au∣thours, as to the first Founder of our Monarchy, and the time where∣in it was founded; as also the irre∣concilable Consequences following thereupon, wherein our three great Adversaries Camden, Usher and Bi∣shop of St. Asaph did so widely dif∣fer, 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 * 1.16 or seventh Centuries, professing, that in matters of so great obscurity he could determine nothing.

My last Argument to prove, that our Histories cannot be overturn'd by the Irish, shall be from comparing the Warrants of both. But, before I enter upon this, I must again regret in this Book, as I did in my last, that

the Irish should mistake so far their own Interest, as to suffer or furnish theirs to overturn the Credibility of ours: Since, because we acknow∣ledge 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 Extracti∣on. 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 Ro∣man and foreign Authors, which they had not the occasion to do, they in so far were proved to be an∣cient, which Stanihurst well ob∣serv'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 contro∣verted

the Authority of their Annals, though some of the English had pro∣duc'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 particu∣larly Dr. Stillingfleet railly their An∣tiquities and Authours Ketin, War∣doeus and O-Flahertie, and yet seem (which is severe) to allow their An∣tiquities, to the end they may en∣courage 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 pro∣ceed to discover.

First, The Milesian Race is ac∣counted by the Irish their Fourth Race; and yet this is controverted by Dr. Stillingfleet. And the Authority * 1.17 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 Anti∣quity he does allow them is, as to general things, as, from whence they

were peopl'd, and that they had suc∣cessions of Kings time out of mind; * 1.18 and does magnify the Tygerneck An∣nals for confessing, that the Irish An∣tiquities, 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 Fer∣gusius Fortamalius, who liv'd Anno Mundi 3775. which is 134 years af∣ter our Fergus; whereas we necessa∣rily 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 Geo∣graphers and other Writers, as inha∣bited, 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

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 contra∣dict 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 In∣terest to support their Antiquities; yet in as far as they are now pro∣duc'd to overturn what relates to our Countrey, they are not to be pre∣ferr'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 Histo∣ries for the times, after the Britains, English or Irish were acknowledg'd to be setled? And as to the Irish Writers themselves, this Poem selec∣ted and preferr'd to all other Annals by O-Flahertie, as not onely con∣taining 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

I have said of it, I must add, that O-Flahertie * 1.19 acknowledges, that there were several different Copies of it, and even this, which he fol∣low'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 Mo∣nasteries 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 * 1.20 acknowledges that the Psalter of Na∣ran contains onely matters of Devo∣tion, 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

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-war∣ranted Annals before that time; which the Doctor denies. For first, We were then fully possess'd not onely of our own first part of Scot∣land, 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, A∣bernethie, Mailross, Lindisfern, and other Monasteries, which lay with∣in that great extent; and which ex∣tent Dr. Stillingfleet acknowledges, since Severus's Wall is by him con∣fess'd to be built betwixt Tine and Esk. We had also the number of our Bishopricks increased by the sub∣duing of the Picts, as is not onely probable in it self, but is clear by the acknowledg'd Catalogues of Bisho∣pricks in Fordon. Icolmkill is by

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 His∣tory; but he cites the Chronicle of Abernethie, which the Doctor ac∣knowledges * 1.21 to be an old Chronicle; and Beda also acknowledges; that there was such a Monastery as Aber∣corn. And though the Doctor cites Bu∣chanan, * 1.22 saying, that it was so demo∣lish'd, that no vestige of it did ap∣pear; yet, the Pictish Kingdom be∣ing 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 Mail∣ross was rebuilt by St. David; yet,

that it was a famous Monastery in Beda's time, is clear (for he tells, that the Abbat of Mailross was tran∣slated to Lindisfern) and has proba∣bly remained long demolish'd by the Wars, as Abercorn did; and the Wri∣ters did thereby express the rebuil∣ding 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 Foun∣dation of Mailross, wherein the Lands of Mailross and others are gi∣ven to the Monks of Rivallis. But, whether Mailross or Rivallis are di∣stinct 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 Mo∣nasteries doted by St. David.

It contributes much to the prefe∣rence of our Histories beyond the Irish in point of Credibility, and to the establishment of the Credibility of our Histories against all our Ad∣versaries, that in the Debate before

the Pope at Rome, about the Year 1300. (where the Roman Antiqui∣ties must certainly be best under∣stood, and when the Debate was a∣gainst the Learn'd English, who were very much concerned to con∣tradict us) we did own this our set∣tlement before Iulius Caesar his en∣try 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 De∣bate and Letter being yet extant, these are surer Warrants for our An∣tiquity, than any thing that can be urg'd against us from the Irish An∣nals, the eldest whereof are in the

Year 1100. written by Natives at home, without any contradiction or warrant, for ought we have yet seen. Nor has the Learn'd Dr. Stil∣lingfleet answered the same Objec∣tion, 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 one∣ly, 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 nei∣ther had, nor could have sufficient Warrants for a greater Antiquity than the Irish. (2.) The Irish pro∣duce 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 convin∣cingly as can be in any such case, that we had such Annals in these our Monasteries, and that our His∣torians compil'd our Histories from

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 Credibili∣ty, are * 1.23 Testimonies founded upon Ancient Credible Writers, having a concurrent probability of circum∣stances, and that amongst these An∣cient Writers, consideration is to be had of their abilities, opportunities, care and diligence, according to which Rules, I have formerly pro∣duced many concurring Testimonies from Ancient Credible Authours, relating things credible, and proba∣ble: and now in competition with the Irish, as to the abilities, and op∣portunities 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 remem∣ber my Readers, that the Doctor de∣nies the Irish any opportunity of transmitting their Histories by Let∣ters, till after St. Patrick's time.

But so it is, that I have prov'd that Palladius's Mission was to the Scots in Britain, and the Doctor has ac∣knowledg'd, that this Mission of Palladius was Prior to that of Saint Patrick: and which is higher, the Doctor acknowledges that the Un∣conquer'd Nations beyond the Roman Wall, were the Christians spoke of by Tertullian; and I have prov'd that we were one of these Uncon∣quered Nations. And therefore, since we had the use of Letters before the Irish, Letters being the surest Vehi∣cles 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, whe∣ther we our selves were the Uncon∣quer'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 Bri∣tans, whom they conquer'd. The

next is, that we had greater oppor∣tunity 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 un∣controverted part of our History, and in which they contradict the Foreign and Contemporary Histo∣rians 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 Coun∣trymen, Pope Adrian gives the Kingdom of Ireland to Henry the * 1.24 Second of England, ad declarandum

indoctis, & rudibus populis Christianoe fidei veritatem, &c. whereupon they writ a Letter to Pope Iohn, wherein * 1.25 they complain, that they were se∣verely 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 Coun∣try, to assert that this his Majesty's Kingdom was never called Scotland, till 1000 years after Christ. But the Reverend Bishop of St. Asaph find∣ing that this was not tenable; he onely asserts, that after the Year 900. we got the rest of the Coun∣try, and then it onely came to be called Scotland. Both these Opi∣nions 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 unwarranta∣bly asserted that the Name of Scots, doth originally belong to the Scots

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 clea∣ring 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 An∣tiquity of the names of Scotia, or Scoti, but onely when we first set∣led here. And therefore though our Historians do assert that the Irish were first called Scots, that contra∣dicts not any of my Positions. For though very anciently the Irish might be called Scots, yet about the

time that the Romans and others be∣gun 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 him∣self * 1.26 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 Ec∣clesiastical History, wherein Bede * 1.27 relates, that Egfrid, King of Nor∣thumberland, having sent an Army into Ireland under Bertus, he wasted the Country, and the Innocent Peo∣ple: 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 de∣stroyed, 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

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 do∣mum, 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 Ire∣land, because the Nation which Eg∣frid invaded, had been always kind to the English; which cannot be said of our Scotland. But to this it

is replied, that I have prov'd in my * 1.28 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 Reli∣gion, 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 En∣glish Polychronicon, who says many * 1.29 evidences we have that this Scotland is ofttimes called (Heght) Hiber∣nia, as Ireland does: for which he cites many Proofs, and particularly this Passage in Beda.

If it is a * 1.30 common Saw, that the Country which now is nam'd Scotland, is an outstretching of the North part of Britain. This Lond hete some∣time Albania, and hath that name of Albanactus, afterwards the Lond

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 Eg∣fridus, * 1.31 King of Northumberland, de∣stroyed 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 * 1.32 to the Year 1398.

From which I draw these Con∣clusions. (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 Ad∣versaries Arguments. (3.) That this place in Bede is to be ascrib'd to us, notwithstanding Dr. Stilling∣fleet's

reason, and Offlahartie's His∣tory.

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, * 1.33 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 perti∣net: albeit, speaking of Hy, in o∣ther places, he says it is in Hi∣bernia.

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 Ire∣land? 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 oft∣times Places belonging to one ano∣ther. And the Picts being sensible, that they were not able to keep this Place which was so remote from their own Territories, they did

therefore the more easily mortify it to a Monastery. Nor could it other∣wise have belong'd to the Picts: for it was never pretended that the Pic∣tish 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 Icolm∣kill, or Hy: and it was never que∣stion'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 incon∣sistent 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 Bri∣tain, was then called Ireland. Nor does the situation of the Place con∣tribute less to clear this, than Beda's

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 I∣rish 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 Stilling∣fleet asserts: for the Bishop of Saint Asaph acknowledges, that Aidan was ordained at Hy, by the Bishop of Hy, and Dunkeld * 1.34, which he supposes with Usher to be then founded, and cites Bede † 1.35 for his Voucher: and adds, that after Fi∣rian's death, Colman succeeded in the Bishoprick, who was also sent from

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 Be∣da, can dispute, what is so clearly said in him, that Scotland was called Hibernia; and so we'll conclude a∣gainst * 1.36 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 understan∣ding: 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

I formerly cited. To whom I now add several English Authours, as William of Malmsbury, who spea∣king of Britain, says, & per se, velut insulam, à Scotia divisa. And Bartholomoeus Anglicus says, that Scotia Regnum promontorium est, montibus & maris brachiis à Bri∣tannia separata: & Anglorum pro∣genies, 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 ap∣pear, that the remotest part of the Isle of Britain towards the North is Northumberland. Which could * 1.37 not have been true, if it had not been spoken upon the supposition, that our Country had been an I∣sland; for our Country lies be∣north Northumberland; in the Isle of Britain. All which are to be found in the Third Chapter of the Second Book of Fordon, with se∣veral others, which I here omit, rather as unnecessary, than imper∣tinent.

I add to these Paulus Diaconus, * 1.38 who speaking of Wars betwixt the Britains and Saxons, from the time of Ambrosius Aurelianus, says, that the Victory hung uncer∣tain 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 one∣ly meant, that the Saxons conquer'd that part which belonged to the Ro∣mans, and was called an Isle, as contra-distinguished from ours. I * 1.39 prov'd this also from the Marty∣rologium Romanum, Abredonioe in Hibernia, Sancti Beani Episcopi, to which nothing is answered: And I now add to it, Baronius in not is, * 1.40 Beani vetera manuscripta ex quibus Molanus hac die fuit hic Episcopus Abredonensis.

Having thus cleared the Antiqui∣ty 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

as Ingenuous, in retracting what he has written against the State, in these Points; As he did very Com∣mendably retract what he had writ∣ten against the Government of his own Church, in his Irenicum: At least he will retract That insolent Expression, Praef. pag. 72. That our An∣tiquities are universally dis-esteem'd, amongst all Iudicious and inquisitive Men: Since all men have not writ∣ten their opinion, nor has he read all Writers; and this at least contradicts the many parts of his Book, where∣in 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

one, who not onely owns our An∣tiquities, but makes our Antiquities a strong Argument against the Su∣premacy of the Pope. For (says he) the Bishop of Rome cannot pre∣tend, that the Church in Britain re∣ceived the Christian Faith from Rome, since Scotland, a part of it, was Christian before the Romans had access to it. The Authour is the lear∣ned Lomeierus; * 1.41 who tells us, That the Britains had the knowledge of Letters 270 years before Christ: for Dor∣nadilla 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 Religi∣on: for Tertul. advers. Iud. cap. 7. tells, that the places which were unaccessible to the Romans, had yielded to Christ. And from this he con∣cludes, that they are Para∣sites, who flatter the Bishop

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 Lear∣ning, and consequently a Foun∣dation for the Credibility of our Annals. 2. Here is an acknow∣ledgment 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. * 1.42 3. Here is an acknowledgment, that Tertullian's Citation is applicable to us. 4. It seems by this more just, that the Bi∣shop of St. Asaph should rather have sustained our Antiquities, as an Argu∣ment against Popery, than rejected them for answering an Argument a∣gainst Episcopacy, Religion being of greater consequence than Govern∣ment, and the inference being stron∣ger in the one Case than the other; for he should have urg'd that it is not probable, that we who were

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 Re∣ligion already received, might have Cemented us; yet before it was sub∣mitted 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 o∣ther Points for many Ages, in which we followed the Greek Church in opposition to the Romish. But leav∣ing this Argument to be prosecuted by Dr. Stilling fleet, it cannot be de∣nied 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 Argu∣ments from Premisses which himself thinks uncertain.

Possevinus also the Jesuit, in his * 1.43 Bibliotheca Selecta, inserts among the Historians whom he recom∣mends

as most Authentick, an ac∣count 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 ap∣propriated to us, and to these are added three other Citations, agree∣ing with them, one from St. Chryso∣stome in Serm. de Pentecost. a second from the same Authour, in his Ho∣milia 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 An∣tiquity behoved to be very remarka∣ble, since before Bishop Usher's time, every Nation made us most ancient, next to themselves; so in this Book I may conclude, that our Christia∣nity 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 con∣sequences 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.

Thus I hope I have sufficiently illu∣strated this Subject, and therefore I am not resolved any farther, either to burthen it, or my Readers.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pref. p. 47.
• * 1.2

  Ogyg. part 3. cap. 1.
• * 1.3

  Ogyg. part 3. cap. 2.
• * 1.4

  Chron. Mail. p. 136. edit. Oxon. 1684.
• * 1.5

  Ogyg. p. 480.
• * 1.6

  Praef. p. 25.
• * 1.7

  Ogyg. Pr. p. 27.
• * 1.8

  Lib. 14. c. 44.
• * 1.9

  Lib. 11. c. 15.
• * 1.10

  Education du Prince, l. 1. chap. 1. p. 39.
• * 1.11

  Praef. p. 4. 46.
• * 1.12

  Ogyg. p. 468.
• * 1.13

  Ogyg. p. 114, & 264.
• * 1.14

  Pag. 165. 190. 327.
• * 1.15

  Ogyg. p. 475.
• * 1.16

  Chap. 5. pag. 282.
• * 1.17

  Praef. & Chap. 5. passim.
• * 1.18

  Praef. p. 45, 46.
• * 1.19

  Ogyg. p. 467. Verum aliquot de∣sider at is Disti∣chis, integrum A∣pographum repe∣rire non contigit; aliàs absolutum ex eo Catalogum contexere non du∣bitaremus.
• * 1.20

  Stillingfleet, chap. 5. p. 271.
• * 1.21

  Praef. p. 51.
• * 1.22

  Praef. p. 48.
• * 1.23

  Still. chap. 1. p. 35.
• * 1.24

  Vid. Bul. in For∣don, lib. 12. cap. 33.
• * 1.25

  Fordon, ibid.
• * 1.26

  P. 348.
• * 1.27

  Lib. 4. cap. 26.
• * 1.28

  Lib. 3. cap. 27.
• * 1.29

  Lib. 1. cap. 37.
• * 1.30

  Lib. 1. de Scotia cap. 39.
• * 1.31

  Lib. 4. cap. 22.
• * 1.32

  Voss. de Hist. Lat. lib. 3.
• * 1.33

  Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.34

  Cap. 5. p. 103, 104, 105.
• † 1.35

  Hist. 3. 5. pag. 171, 172. & 3. 5. p. 166.
• * 1.36

  Praef. p. 69.
• * 1.37

  Scotiae propin∣quum. Ex quibus patet quod ultima pars insulae Bri∣tanniae versus Boream est Nor∣thumbria.
• * 1.38

  Epit. hist. Rom. p. 672.
• * 1.39

  Decr. 16. pag. 783.
• * 1.40

  Pag. 784.
• * 1.41

  Joh. Lomeierus de Bi∣bliothecis, p. 149. Edit. 2. Ex Germaniâ transfreta∣mus ad penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos, qui quidem literarum cognitionem diu ante Christi tempora habu∣isse dicuntur: Anno enim an∣te Christum natum 270. Dor∣nadilla Maini silius, Scoto∣rum Rex, praecepta venandi scriptis commisit, & subdi∣tis suis servanda proposuit: quae leges & nostro adhuc seculo, seu sacrae, observan∣tur. Fidem Christianam non postremi receperunt. Tertull. adv. Judaeos, cap. 7. Britannorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo vero subdita. Audiant hoc Ro∣mani Pontificis Gnathones, qui ejus universalem Mo∣narchiam in Ecclesiam quo∣vis modo stabilire conantur. Britanni fidem acceperunt in illis locis quo Romanis adi∣tus non patebat. Qui posset dari Episcopus universalis, cùm nullus unquam fuerit Monarcha politicus, qui sibi totum terrarum orbem sub∣jecerit? Quamvis Romano∣rum imperatores hac vanâ opinione inflatos Spiritus ges∣serunt, ut se totius orbis Do∣minos crederent, cùm sanè modicam ejus partem obtine∣rent.
• * 1.42

  And though it may be objected that he had this from our Histo∣rians, yet it still proves that he and others be∣lieve our Histo∣rians.
• * 1.43

  Lib. 16. Cap. 5.