The Antiquities of the British Churches, Preface

The Antiquities of the British Churches · Preface

p. iTHE PREFACE.

THE Design of the following Book is to give as clear and distinct a View of the State and Condition of the British Churches, from their first Plantation to the Conversion of the Saxons, as could be had at so great a distance, and by such a degree of Light as is left us concerning them. When I first undertook this Subject I intended no more than an Introduction to something else; but being entred into it, and laying the several parts of it before me, I found so many obscure and doubtfull passages to be clear'd, so many common mistakes to be rectified, so many considerable parts of Church-History which tended to illustrate it, that either I must give a very imperfect Account of it, or so much exceed the proportions of a Preface, that I concluded I had better alter my design and with more Pains and Materials make it an intire Work of it self. To this end I laid aside whatever related to the first Occasion of my undertaking it, reserving that for its proper Place and Season; and then I resumed the consideration of this present Argument, with larger and freer thoughts, and resolved to attempt something towards the rescuing this part of Church-History, wherein we are so much concerned, from those Fabulous Antiquities which had so much debased the Value and eclipsed the Glory of it.

This I knew was a Work, not onelyonly of much Labour and Industry in searching and comparing good and bad Authours Printed and MS. foreign and domestick; but which required more than ordinary care and judgment in separating the Oar from the Dross; which being done as it ought, the question might be, whether it would not fall out here as in some Mines, that the quantity of good Oar would be so small as hardly to compensate for the Pains of digging and refining it. But this was not all the difficulty to be foreseen; for some Mens Eyes are still so tender as not to be p. iiable to bear the strong impressions of Light; especially in what relates to the Antiquities of their own Countrey.

For whatever the reason be, of that Love Mankind do naturally bear to the Countrey they are born in, we find it so universal, that even the Laplanders and Samoyeds admire no Countrey like their own; and are impatient of any contradiction to their Fancies of the Beauties and Conveniencies of it. And it is pity to rob Men of any such false Idea's, not entrenching upon Religion or Morality, which tend so much to the Ease and Comfort of their Lives. For, if Men will be in love with a cold Air and a barren Soil, with Ice and Mountains, with living in Caves and Hutts, and travelling upon the hardned Snow, to what purpose should any go about to confute them, by proving that the Elysian Fields are more pleasant than those Northern Climats? And so strong is the inclination that is rooted in Mankind to the Love of their Countrey, that some learned and witty Men, who have been born in none of the most tempting Climats have used great Art and Industry to represent them with such advantage to the World, as though Paradise were but another Name for their Native Countrey. Of which we have a remarkable instance in the late Work of an ingenious Person, who with mighty pains hath endeavoured to prove not onelyonly that Plato's Atlantick Island, Ola Rudbeck. Atlantic. c. 7.23.but the Elysian Fields themselves are to be found in one of the remotest Northern Countries.

And it is to little purpose to go about to alter such Mens opinions, which are not so much founded on Reason, as on an over bearing Passion for their native Soil, which hurts no other Part of the World, and makes their own seem more pleasant to themselves. Some will be apt to think, the greatest punishment to such Persons, is to let them live at Home and enjoy their own Opinions; but I rather look on it as an effect of the Wisedom of Divine Providence to make Men contented with the Places of their Habitations: For if all Mankind should love and admire one and the same Countrey, there would be nothing but destroying one another in hopes to enjoy it; whereas now, since the true Paradise is lost, it seems to be most convenient for the World, that every Nation should believe they have it at Home.

p. iiiIf therefore any of our Neighbour Nations should think their own the richest, the pleasantest, the fruitfullest Countrey in the World, I should by no means think it fit to dispute it with them, no more than I would the Wisedom or Goodness of their Parents. For, however the Truth of things be, it is best for Children to believe well of them; and it may prove of very ill consequence to alter a mistaken good Opinion in them; for it makes them less contented and less fit to be governed than before; and living under such a mispersuasion can never doe them so much hurt as the unseasonable discovery of their Errour doth. From hence I look on all National Quarrels as very foolish and mischievous, it being reasonable that all Persons should love their own Countrey as they do their Parents; and no Man ought to suffer in his esteem for that which it was never in his Power to help. But whosoever fixes an ill Character upon a Person on the account of his Countrey, makes a whole Nation his Enemies, which no wise Man will ever doe; and whoever doeth it will one time or other see cause to repent his Folly.

But is it not possible for learned and ingenuous Men to enquire into and debate the several Antiquities of their Nations without making a National Quarrel about them? In matter of Self-defence there is a Moderamen inculpatae tutelae to be observed; and so there ought certainly to be in the defence of our Countrey; especially when the Dispute relates neither to the safety, nor Profit, nor the true Honour or esteem of it, but onelyonly to a mere point of Antiquity; wherein wise and learned Men may differ from each other that are Natives of the same Countrey. And these matters are not to be decided in the Field, nor at the Bar, nor by a majority of voices, but depend upon the comparing of ancient Histories, the credibility of Testimonies, and a sagacity in searching, and skill in judging concerning them. It is not every one that can plead eloquently at the Bar, or quote Authours at second Hand, or dispute warmly out of common Places, that is presently fit to judge about such things; for he that takes upon him to doe that ought not onelyonly to have a general skill in Antiquity and the best Authours, but to compare the Histories and Annals, the successions and the settlements of the Neighbour Nations together, and then with great impartiality to deliver p. ivhis judgment; but by no means to espouse any particular Interest, as though he were retained on that side. Which he plainly discovers if he appear resolved to maintain one side against the strongest evidence, and to cry down the other in an ignominious and reproachfull manner; as though nothing but particular Piques and Animosities, or which is far worse, ill Will to the Government, could lead Men into such debates; nay as though it were a degree of Lese-Majesty, (as it is termed) to call in question some very remote and very uncertain Traditions about the first Succession of the Kings of a Neighbour Nation. This I have particular reason to take notice of, from the usage the very learned and judicious Bishop of St. Asaph hath lately met with in this kind,Historical Account of ancient Church Government in Great Britain and Ireland. merely because in his late excellent Book he rejects the long Succession of Kings from Fergus the Son of Ferquard, from the time of Alexander's taking of Babylon; which he doth chiefly on these two grounds, 1. Because he proves from good Authorities in his Book, that the Scots could not be so early setled in Britain. 2. Because those Scotish Historians who have asserted it are not of sufficient Authority to be relied upon; which he shews at large in his Preface.

Now upon this occasion, His Majesty's learned Advocate in Scotland, hath been pleased to think it a part of his Duty to answer this part of the Bishop's Book, not without some kind of sharpness and unhandsome Reflexions on a Person of his Character and Merit; but none like this, That he admires that any of the Subjects of Great Britain did not think it a degree of Lese-Majesty to injure and shorten the Royal Line of their Kings. Letter to Lord Chancellour, p. 11.But there is more Reason to admire at the strangeness of this Accusation, unless it were intended to shew that he could as well prosecute as write against the Bishop by virtue of his Office, for disputing their Antiquities. As though the fundamental Constitution of the British Monarchy were at all concerned in the Credit of Hector Boethius, for upon it, as I shall presently shew, the main stress of this matter doth rest.

But because these are dangerous insinuations, and may as well be urged against some part of the following Book, I shall here make it clear how very unjust and unreasonable they are. For it is not the Antiquity of the Royal p. vLine which is in dispute, but the Succession of it in such a Place; the Irish Antiquaries carrying the Succession much farther back than Hector Boethius, or Lesly, V. Gratian. Lucium in Cambr. Evers. p. 248, 249.or Buchanan do. And therefore they charge others far more with shortning the Royal Line, making it to begin with Fergus; when they derive it long before by a continued Succession from Simon Brek, and Herimon, and Gathelus, who they say was but six Descents from Japhet. But if there be any degree of Lese-Majesty (for I am very unwilling to put these hard Words into proper English) in those who debate any thing wherein the Honour of the Royal Line is concerned, let them clear themselves of it, who lay the foundation of the Monarchy in the Election of Fergus. For that is truly the State of the case; those who contend so earnestly for the Succession of the Royal Line from Fergus the Son of Ferchard, placing his Title to the Monarchy in the choice of the Heads of the Tribes; which will appear from the Words of Hector Boethius, who is in truth the main support of all this Tradition.

For, although Fordon doth mention the Succession of many Kings from Fergus the Son of Ferquard to Fergus II. yet he professes he could find nothing particular concerning them; although he quotes several Chronicles, and we are told he had the View of their Annals, such as they were, of Paslay, Scoon and other Places. He names indeed 45. Kings, A primo quidem hujus Regni Fergusio filio Ferchardi ad hunc Regem Fergusium filium Erch inclusive, 45. Reges ejusdem gentis & generis in hac Insula regnaverunt: sed & horum sigillatim distinguere tempora principatuum ad praesens omittimus, nam ad plenum Scripta non reperimus. Fordon Scotichr. l. 4. c. 2.but he desires to be excused as to the several times of their Reigns, for he had not met with them written at large, but from the time of Fergus II. he promiseth to be very distinct and particular. Yet after him comes Hector Boethius, of whom the learned Advocate tells us that Erasmus said he could not lie; Defence of the Antiquity, &c. p. 29.(which comes very near to Infallibility in matter of Fact) and he is as distinct and particular in the first Succession as he is in the second. From whence comes this mighty difference? Of this he informs us from Hector Boethius himself (and can we have a better Authority than his that could not lie?) That he had several Books from Icolmkill, which he followed in writing his History. I cannot now enter upon the consideration of the p. viAuthority of these Books, (of which afterwards) but, as far as yet appears, it depends upon the Credibility of Hector.

But that which I am now to shew is, that if Hector Boethius his Authority be allowed, those who lengthen the Royal Line doe more injury to the Monarchy than those who shorten it. For the first Account he gives of it is this,l. 1. f. 6. That the Scots in Britain being pressed by the Picts and Britains, they sent over into Ireland for assistence; Ferquard sent his Son Fergus with Supplies; who, saith he, left it to the choice of the Heads of the Tribes, what Government they would have, whether a Monarchy, Aristocracy or a Commonwealth; and they pitched upon a Monarchy, and made Fergus their King: which he saith was just 330 years before Christ's Nativity. After which he sets down Fergus his owning that he received his Authority from the People; and their Fundamental Contract to adhere to him and to his Line,f. 10.2. which if he may be believed, was ingraven in Marble Tables, and then the Agrarian Law follow'd. And (which is very observable) the first Design we find laid for altering the Succession of the Crown and excluding the next Heir, p. 6. l. 19.is in Hector Boethius his account of the immediate Successour to Fergus the Son of Ferquard. f. 10.2.For notwithstanding the binding Oath to the Posterity of Fergus, yet immediately after his Death, he saith, Feritharis was chosen King, although Fergus left Ferlegus his Son and Heir; and not onelyonly so, but a Law, saith he, was past excluding the next Heir from any right to Government till he attained to such an Age. The effect whereof was, that Ferlegus attempting to recover his Right from Feritharis was banished and utterly excluded. Hector himself confesses he was at just Age when he demanded the Crown, f. 15.but he was put by and severely rebuked, quod injussu Patrum petiisset Regnum, but he did it without the Authority of the Senate; upon which they imprisoned him, but he made his escape and fled first to the Picts, then to the Britains, and after Feritharis his Death Main was chosen to succeed. This is the just and true account of this matter, as it is delivered by Hector Boethius, and after him by Lesly, Leslae. l. 2. p. 81.who speaks more plainly of Ferlegus his exclusion; sed Ferlegum p. viirecusavit Populus. Buchanan saith,Buch. l. 4. p. 29. that he was condemned in his Absence; but he would fain reconcile this practice to their former Oath; (although the Advocate himself saith,p. 245. this Oath did in Law and Reason bind them to obey the Lineal Successour according to the proximity of Bloud) but Buchanan's pretence is because the present King during the Minority of the Heir, was but a King in trust, and the Heir at such an Age was to succeed. But how well that was observed appears by this first instance, and in truth, Hector Boethius and the rest after him do put the whole power as to these Matters, in the hands of the People, or at least of the Heads of the Clanns; as will appear more afterwards.

It cannot therefore but be very surprising to us to see his Majesty's Advocate so zealously defending this History of the first Succession of their Kings, Defence, &c. p. 110.and reflecting upon a Bishop of our Church for calling it in question. And yet he cannot deny that this Law was the Occasion of many bloudy Civil Wars between the Uncles and Nephews; and he calls it the Dispute betwixt such as were for the Crown and such as were for Popular Elections. From whence it follows, That Hector Boethius his History of the first Succession from Fergus is to set up the popular Claim. And quite through that first Race Hector makes the supreme unaccountable power in all cases of Male Administration to be lodged in the Heads of the People, and the Ministerial in the Monarch.

And therefore, we should have thought it had better become his Majesty's Advocate to have overthrown such pernicious Principles to Monarchy, as are contained in this account of the first Race of their Kings from Fergus the Son of Ferquard. And although Buchanan, among the half-learned, bear the blame of these Antimonarchical Principles, Just Right of Monarchy, p. 26.yet it is evident that he onelyonly built on the Foundations laid by those who set up this first Race, as the Advocate himself confesseth, whose Words are, All Buchanan's Arguments for restraining Kings being founded on the Authority of our Historians, who, as he saith, assert that King Fergus was first elected King by the People. Leslae. Hist. p. 77.79.And therefore those Historians who set up this Succession in such a manner had no kindness to Monarchy, as appears by what Lesly himself saith about King Fergus and his Successours.

p. viiiIt is true that the learned Advocate hath, according to his duty, published a Just Defence of the Monarchy of Scotland; but I must crave leave to say that it can never be defended upon good grounds unless the Account of Fergus the Son of Ferquard, and the Succession of Kings from him as delivered by Hector Boethius and Lesly as well as Buchanan be rejected. And this is too plain from the Answers he gives to this Consent of their Historians.

1. He saith, That Gathelus was not at all elected by the People. p. 27.Whither are we now carried? The question was concerning Fergus in Scotland, the answer is concerning one who is supposed to have lived I know not how many Ages before him, and we know not where: And it had been to as much purpose to have said, Adam was not chosen by the People. But who was this Gathelus? In very truth, he was no other (according to these Historians) than a Son of a certain King of Athens, who went into Aegypt and married Scota the Daughter of Pharaoh, who was drowned in the Red Sea, and afterwards setled in Portugal, from him called Portus Gatheli,p. 26. (as the Advocate observes) from whence a Colony of that Race transported it self into Ireland, and another into Scotland.p. 28. Now, saith he, all those who are descended from his Colonies were by Law obliged to obey the eldest Son and Representative of that Royal Family. What! by the Law in King Fergus's time? For there is none so much as mentioned before that fundamental Contract; and was it not well kept after Fergus's death? But if there had been any precedent the other had been needless. However the question is not concerning Gathelus and his Posterity in Ireland, but Fergus and his Successours in Scotland.

p. 27.2. He answers, That the Heads of their Tribes acknowledged Fergus for their King. But do not these Historians say expresly, That they chose him, and that he left it to them to chuse what Government they pleased? And the Words of Fergus in Hector Boethius are these,Hect. Boeth. Hist. l. 1. f. 62. vestrum erit in hoc Negotio, quid utilius ad vestram Rempublicam sit discernere, nostrum vestra capessere imperia. Did ever Man more own the Supreme Authority of the People than Hector Boethius makes Fergus to doe in these Words? Whether these very p. ixWords were spoken by him, even Hector dares not say; but he is sure they were such like. And afterwards he saith, tandem Fergusio Regnum decernunt; And to the same purpose Lesly, Leslae, Hist. Scot. p. 77.Fergusio Regnum ab omnibus decernitur. Is all this a bare acknowledgment of him for their King? what more emphatical Words could be used to express a free Election, and that the People gave Fergus the Power, than these Historians do use?

3. He goes on to give a farther Answer, which is very remarkable in his Majesty's Advocate, p. 29.viz. that we reade nothing at all of the consent of the People, but of the Heads of the Tribes, who had no Commission from the People, each of them having by his Birthright a Power to command his own Tribe, and consequently the Royal Power was not derived from the People. What is the meaning of all this, but onelyonly to shew that the Royal Authority was not derived from the Rabble, but from the Nobility or Heads of the several Clanns; and consequently the Power of calling their Kings to account lay onelyonly in them? No, saith he, Fergus succeeded in the Right of those Chiefs to command their respective Families. Then Fergus had no more Power, as Monarch, than the Heads of the several Clanns had before. But did they, according to these Historians, part with their Rights of Government to Fergus and his Posterity? By what Authority then did they take upon them to imprison and depose (a)(a)Hect. Boeth. l. 3. f. 36. l. 40. Leslae. p. 92.Euenus III. and set up Cadalanus as King? By what Authority did they take Arms against (b)(b)Hect. Boeth. l. 4. f. 59. Leslae. p. 97.Dardanus and set up Galdus, who took away his Life, communi omnium Ordinum consensu, saith Lesly? By what Authority did they assemble against (c)(c)Hect. Boeth. l. 5. f. 75. Leslae. p. 101.Lugtachus, Galdus his Son, and s…t Souldiers to dispatch him? By what Authority did they rise against (d)(d)Hect. Boeth. l. 5. f. 79. Leslae. p. 103.Mogallus his Successour, with a design to destroy him, as Hector confesseth, which they did effectually, as Lesly agrees? How came they to take upon them to imprison (e)(e)Hect. Boeth. l. 5. f. 81. Leslae. p. 103.Conarus and set up Argadus in his room? And to dispose of the Government in the time of (f)(f)Hect. Boeth. l. 5. f. 90. Leslae. p. 109.Ethodius II. and according to Lesly commit him to Prison, where he was killed? How came they, notwithstanding the Law of Regency to set up (g)(g)Hect. Boeth. l. 6. f. 90. Leslae. p. 110.Athirco, while he was uncapable by it? I meddle not with those Kings who were killed p. xby secret Conspiracies, nor with open Vsurpers, such as Nathalocus and Donald of the Isles; but I onelyonly set down what these Historians deliver, as to the Right and Authority which the Nobles assumed to themselves in case of Male-administration, to shew that if these Mens Accounts must be received, the Heads of the Clanns did not part with their share in the Government so much, but upon occasion they did resume it. And therefore I have been apt to suspect (from the Controversie about Regency at the time when Hector wrote) that all this History of the first Race of Kings was framed on purpose out of ill will to the Monarchy, Leslae. p. 392, 396.and with a design to advance the Power of the Nobility. And now let any true friend to the Monarchy judge, whether those who shorten the Royal Line, or those who so earnestly contend for this Story of Fergus and his Successours, be more liable to be charged with any degree of Lese-Majesty.

p. 28.4. But after all, the Advocate saith, That Fordon the most ancient of their Historians affirms, that Fergus made himself King. Scotichron. l. 1. c. 36.Indeed Fordon doth say, That Fergus the Son of Ferard, (as he calls him) hearing there were many Scots in the Northern parts of Albion, living without order and Government, and hearing a good account of the Countrey, he was prompted by his Ambition to go over to them, and taking with him a good number of young Men, he gathered together the dispersed Scots, and joining them all together in the Western parts, he made himself King over them. Which is no improbable Account, but Fordon saith not a word of all the former passages in the other Historians. And if Fordon be the most ancient of their Historians, what becomes of Veremundus and Cornelius Hibernicus, the two great supporters of Hector Boethius his History? If they were after Fordon, how come they to be so well instructed in so many particulars in the first Succession, which Fordon was wholly unacquainted with?

Scotichron. l. 10. c. 2.I cannot deny that Fordon speaking of the Coronation of Alexander III. (as he calls him) mentions an old Highlander, who in the Irish Tongue repeated the Genealogy of their Kings backward as far as Fergus the Son of Ferquard. But therein he comes not up to the p. xinumber, either in Fordon or Hector Boethius; and hath very considerable differences from the Accounts either in him, or in Lesly and Buchanan. For after Fergus he leaves out Feritharis, and makes Main his next Successour; the next he calls Arindal whom they call Dornadilla; his Son, Roveyn, they Nothatus; and his Rether is the same with their Reuther; but here they interpose a Reutha to make their Story agree with Bede's Reuda. But this Genealogist next names Ther, whom they call Thereus, and his Son Rosin; but they say Josina succeeded Thereus, being his Brother. After this, we find a greater difference, for instead of Finnanus, Durstus, Euenus, Gillus, Euenus II. Ederus, Euenus III. Metellanus, Caratacus; we find there onelyonly Dethach, Jaw, Aliela, Euen, Ederskeol, Comermore; Some agreement there is, but a far greater diversity, and Hector's famous Caratacus quite omitted. Then succeeded Corbre, whom they call Corbred, after him Daradiamore, by them stiled Dardanus; then another Corbre instead of their Galdus; and then Luthach, Lugtacus in them; then Mogalama, their Mogallus; Coner their Conarus; Ethath their Ethodius; Fiachrath their Satrahel; then another Ethath, whom they call Ethodius II. before whom they place King Donald in whose time, they say, Christianity was first received in Scotland, who is utterly excluded by this ancient Genealogy. For after this Ethodius follows in it Athirkiwr, which is their Athirco, then Findachar, which is their Findocus, and so Nathalocus is shut out; and so after him are the two Donalds, for the next that follows is Thrinklind, whom they call Crathlintus; then Fencormach their Fincormacus, after him Romaich, their Romachus; then Enegussa, which is plainly their Angusianus, and Fethelmech their Fetelmachus; then Engusafich and Etheat, instead of which they put Eugenius and Ethodius his Brother; whom both make Grandfather to Fergus II. whose Father they call Erthus, but the ancient Genealogy and Fordon Eirch.

Now by comparing this Genealogy and Hector Boethius together, I am convinced that he did not forge all the Names of his first Race of Kings, between the two Fergusses; but yet from hence it appears, (1.) That Hector did insert many things contrary to this ancient Genealogy; p. xiiand when he did so he had some end to serve in it. As when he puts in Regents which the Genealogy never owns; but this was to support his Law of incapacity; but in all this Genealogy there is a direct lineal Descent, and when he puts in Reutha it is to answer Bede's Reuda, and Galdus for Tacitus his Galgacus, and Caratacus for the famous British King of that Name; and King Donald to answer our King Lucius, that. they might have a Christian King in the time of the Pope next succeeding Eleutherius. 2. That this Genealogy may be allow'd without any advantage to the Succession of Kings in Scotland, from Fergus I. so long before the Nativity of Christ; for it is very observable, that this ancient Genealogist doth very much shorten the Succession between Fergus II. and this Alexander. For he leaves out Eugenius II. and makes Dongard to succeed him; after him Cobren, and then Edanius, whereas here they insert Constantius I. Congallus, Conranus, Eugenius III. Convallus, Kinnatillus between Dongard and Aidanus: After him he names his Son Occahebind, Scotichr. l. 4. c. 38.whom Fordon calls Eothodius-bind, which he saith is the same with Eugenius; and about him, Hector Boethius, as Buchanan observes,Buchan. l. 5. p. 45. contradicts the Book of Pasly, for this saith, he lived in continual Wars, and the other that he enjoy'd a constant Peace; so that Boethius slights the authority of their Ancient Annals. Next after him they place Ferquard, of whom the Genealogy saith nothing at all;Scotichr. l. 4. c. 41. Fordon next to nothing. In cujus nihil actum est tempore, saith he; but the other Historians tell sad Stories of his vitious Life and tragical End. After Eugenius in the Genealogy we find Donewald breck, Fordon saith,c. 45. he died after 14 years Reign; and to him succeeded Ferquard his Brother's Son, not mentioned in the Genealogy; nor Malduinus Son to Donald; for the next is Ethac, i. e. Eugenius, and here they put in another Eugenius, Ambirkelethus, Eugenius VIII. and Mordacus between Ethac and Ethfin, whereas the Genealogist makes Ethafind Son to Ethdre, to whom succeeded Ethas, i. e. Eugenius VIII. in their Account, after him follows Alphin; but between these, they have inserted Fergus III. Solvathius, Achaius, Convallus and Dongallus. They all agree with the Genealogist, that Kenneth p. xiiiimmediately succeeded Alphin; but then follows a wonderfull difference; for here they put in no fewer than 13 Kings between Kenneth and Malcolm the Son of Kenneth, whom the Genealogist places next after him; then follows Duncan in all; between whom and Malcolm Canmoir they put in Machabaeus. After Malcolm he takes no notice of four Kings they insert between him and David, and where they put another Malcolm he placeth Henry, and then they agree in William, Alexander and his Son Alexander; in whom the Genealogy begins, and so runs backward in a lineal Ascent.

Now it deserves very well to be considered, that this ancient Genealogist hath so much shortned the Succession as will bring the whole into a much less compass: For the modern Historians have inserted more Kings in the second Race from Fergus the Son of Erk than are contained in the Genealogy from Fergus the Son of Ferquard to Fergus II. and so the whole Succession will stand within the same time that it now doth, from Fergus the Son of Erk.

And if the shortening the Royal Line be such an injury to it, as the Advocate supposeth, it is well for this ancient Genealogist that he lived so long since, or else he might have had a cast of the Advocate's Office.

Neither is the Authority of this Genealogist to be slighted by the learned Advocate,Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line, p. 20, 21. since himself giving an account how their Tradition might have been, and was preserved, he brings this very instance of the Genealogy of King Alexander in the year 1242. before Fordon's time, and related so by him that his Relation cannot but be credited; and so he repeats the beginning of it as it is in Fordon. But if he had taken the pains to compare it, he would have found how much it overthrew the Credit of their Historians. For if this was the Way their Tradition was preserved, then by this Way, we are to judge of the Truth of their ancient Tradition; and consequently we must reject those Kings whose Names are not preserved in this ancient Genealogy.

And to confirm this we have another said to be more ancient in Fordon, which the Advocate attributes to Baldredus, Abbat of Melros, (otherwise called Ealredus, p. 22.Abbat of Rhieval) in his Lamentation of King David, soon after his death, who died A. D. 1151. But I confess I do not p. xivfind, that Fordon attributes this Genealogy to Baldredus, for he saith he had it from Walter de Wardlaw,Scotich l. 5. c. 59. Cardinal and the Bishop of Glasgow, who lived in the time of Robert II. saith Lesly:Leslae. p. 250. (which helps to discover Fordon's Age) And in this Genealogy the first part from David to Fergus is cut off with an &c. but the other part from Fergus II. up to Fergus I. is preserved entire, and except in the spelling of some few Names, exactly agrees with the former Genealogy, leaving out all those Kings which are omitted in the other. But the latter Genealogy having been corrupted before Fordon's time, he would not have it stand upon Record against him; which caution he forgot when he came to Alexander III.

But there is still a third Genealogy in Fordon, which supplies in some measure the defects in that of King David, and it is the Succession of Kenneth, the first Monarch of Scotland (the Picts being totally subdued by him) and then he makes no more between them but Alphin, and then Achai (which seems to be truer than the other which calls Alphin's Father Ethas) before him he places Ethfin called Ethafind in the other; next him is Eugenius in the other Ethodac; then Dongard the Son of Donwald Brek; whereas in the other this Dongard is omitted; before Donewald-brek in this Genealogy, is Eugenius-bind called Occahebind in the other; then Aidanus, in the other Edanus; then Gouran called there Cobren, then Dongard, and so we are come to Fergus the great; and there is but one difference, i. e. about Dongard, in these Genealogies. And this makes but 10 Kings between Fergus and Kenneth, whereas the common Historians make 28. which is a very unreasonable Addition to their own most ancient Genealogies. But if this were not done there would appear no probability, that the first Fergus should have come into Scotland 330 years before Christ's Nativity. Which the learned Advocate affirms in the very beginning of his Defence, that all their Historians are agreed on. And yet farther to confirm these Genealogies he tells us he had seen an old Genealogy of the Kings of the Albanian Scots, agreeing with that mentioned at the Coronation of King Alexander II. and which has still been preserv'd as sacred there, i. e. at Icolmkill, I suppose, or the Island Jona. But it is observable p. xvthat Hector mentioning the Coronation of this Alexander, Hect. Boeth. Hist. l. 13. f. 295.takes notice of the Highlander's repeating the Genealogy by heart, and he carries it as far as Gathelus, but sets down nothing at all of the particulars, which he knew would by no means agree with his Catalogue of Kings so long before Christ. And to confirm all these Genealogies, the Irish Genealogies in Gratianus Lucius agree with them in excluding so many Kings,Gratian. Luc. Cambr. Evers. p. 248. which Hector hath inserted to make the account of time seem probable. OnelyOnly they make Fergus the Son of Erk to be the first who carried the Scots from Ireland into Albany; and the Ancestours before to have lived in Ireland, and to have been derived from the Monarchs there.

But when Hector Boethius found 330 years before Christ pitched upon by Fordon for the Scots coming into Scotland with so much punctuality,Scotichr. l. 2. c. 12. that he saith it was in the sixth year of Alexander, wherein he killed Darius and took Babylon,Hect. Boeth. l. 1. f. 7. he thought it by no means fit to omit it, but to it he adds the very year of the World, and of the building of Rome, and how long it was after Brutus his first coming to Britain; which are all great Confirmations of the Truth of this Account. But Fordon quotes no Authour for this wild computation; onelyonly he subjoins a passage out of the Legend of S. Congall, which mentions the coming of Fergus the Son of Ferquard out of Ireland into Britain, and after he mentions Rether for one of his Successours, the same, he saith, with Bede's Reuda. Suppose all this be granted, yet what shadow of proof is there, that Fergus came into Scotland so long before Christ's Nativity? Fordon confesses he knew not how long any of those Kings after Fergus reigned; how then came he to know so exactly the time of their coming? What certain Note or Character of time had they to help them in their Calculation? If they could produce any such, and be able to adjust the times of the Succession of their several Kings by them, there might be a great deal said for this pretended Antiquity; but when it is at the same time confessed they had no such thing, how could they satisfie any reasonable enquirer into these Antiquities?

Things standing thus, and Hector Boethius with the help of his Physician of Aberdeen, (who,Hist. Eccles. l. 2. …. 174.Sir 50:2Sir 50:174 as Dempster p. xvisaith, was so very usefull to him in framing his History) set about the rectifying and curing the Body of their Antiquities; and endeavourd to bring it into better form, and to fill up the vacuities of it, and render it more agreeable to the Palates of that time, which had more smattering of Learning than in the Ages before. And so he begins his History very formally in imitation of the best Roman Authours, with deducing their History from Gathelus and Scota, deriving their Succession from the Greeks and Egyptians, as the Romans did theirs from the Trojans. This I do not attribute to his invention, for it is at large in Fordon; Scotichron. l. 1. c. 9.who quotes some old Chronicles and Legends for it; especially the Legend of S. Brendan; an admirable and authentick Record. But to doe right to Hector in this matter, he saith ingenuously that their People follow'd the custome of other Nations therein. And as I have shew'd in the following Book at large (where I treat of these Antiquities) this humour had overspread all the Northern Nations,Chap. 5. as soon as they shook off the Roman Yoke, and began not onelyonly to be distinct Kingdoms, but to have some affectation of the Roman Learning, and to have Persons of their own Nation who began to write their Histories; who thought they did nothing for the honour of their Countrey unless they could, some way or other, derive themselves from the Trojans, or Greeks, or Egyptians, whom they met with so often in the Roman Authours; and the Romans in most Provinces mixing together with the Northern People, excited a greater Ambition in them, either to be like the Romans, or to exceed them in their pretended Antiquities. And their inventions not being extraordinary, there is very little variety in their several Accounts, as will appear by comparing them in their proper Places.

In this point Hector Boethius hath acquitted himself well enough; but finding the Succession of their Kings very short and meagre, having no flesh to fill it, nor nerves to support it, nor colour to adorn it; therefore he sets himself to make up what he found defective, and to put it together under the Names of Veremundus and Cornelius Hibernius or others; out of these he frames a long series or Catalogue of Kings, which looked big, and raised Mens expectations, and seem'd well enough contrived to serve the p. xviipretence to so great Antiquity. This being done, he fills up the Story of these Kings, not out of their old Annals (as far as yet appears) but in a great measure out of his own invention, so as to mix the Commonwealth-Learning of the Greeks and Romans with the History of their ancient Kings. Which hath done great prejudice to the Rights of the Monarchy; for Hector's History took so much among the Nobility, (for very good Reasons to them) that all that have written since him, have depended upon his Authority, as appears both by Buchanan and Lesly; unless it were where he grosly contradicted the Roman History, and there Buchanan leaves him, but for the main of his History he relies upon him;Leslae. Paraen. ad Nobil. Scot. p. 22. and Lesly doth nothing in effect but abridge him, whatever he pretends as to Records and the Annals of the Monasteries of Pasly and Scoon;Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line, p. 39. which the Advocate supposeth he saw at Rome, whither he saith they were carried. If so it had been worth while to have procured well attested Copies from thence; which had not been hard in all this time, so many Gentlemen of that Nation travelling thither, and seeing all the Curiosities of their Libraries. But Lesly saith no such thing; for he appeals to the publick Archives of the Kingdom, and not to any MSS. at Rome; so that if they were any where, they were then in Scotland.

But the Advocate seems to have forgotten what he had said before;p. 32. viz. that the black Book of Scoon was among President Spotswood's Books; indeed he saith, King Charles I. ransom'd it from Rome; but how that appears I know not; but I know the circumstances he mentions about Col. Fairfax, &c. relate not to the Book of Scoon, but to a Copy of Fordon, which was presented by him to King Charles II. And if Buchanan had the use of the Books of Pasley, and the famous Book of Pluscarden; as the Advocate believes, upon Buchanan's word,p. 32. then in his time they were not carried to Rome. For my part, I do not question that there were MSS. Chronicles in Scotland before Fordon; for I find him frequently citing them; but by the things he quotes out of them they were not considerable, nor done by any Authority, as the Annals of the Royal Monasteries of this Kingdom; his Continuer saith were and afterwards examined and compared. I am sorry to find Sir R. Sibbald p. xviiireckon up among the Books he had never seen, Prodrom. Hist. Natur. Scot. p. 13.(having made it his business so many years to illustrate his Countrey) not onelyonly Cornelius Hibernicus and Veremundus, but the Annals of Pasley and Scoon: But however, we are glad that the Advocate assures us he hath a very old Abridgment of the Book of Pasley; and may this present heat against the Bishop of St. Asaph provoke them to procure and publish their ancient Annals, such as they are, which will be the greatest advantage to the World of this Contention about their Antiquities. And I am so far from any Pique or Animosity in this matter, that I should be glad to see those Antiquities, which yet appear dark and confused, clear'd up to the satisfaction of all learned and ingenuous Men.

But I must beg pardon of his Majesty's Advocate, if I take the freedom to say he hath not taken the right method to doe it. For he ought first to have proved the matter in dispute by clear and indubitable Testimonies, before he had made his severe Reflexions and Inferences; but as Cicero said of the Musician who defined the Soul to be Harmony, ab Arte sua non recessit, so this ingenious Gentleman hath managed this whole debate in a way more agreeing to the Character of an Advocate than of an Antiquary. For why so many insinuations, as though some injury were intended to the Royal Line, which I dare say, the Bishop of St. Asaph doth really honour and esteem as much as his Majesty's Advocate himself. For, doth any Man of understanding think that it is any injury to the Royal Line of Britain to have the fabulous Antiquities of Geoffrey of Monmouth concerning the Succession of British Kings down from Brutus confuted? And is not this done by Buchanan? And the Advocate in plain English saith, those tempt Men to lie who endeavour to derive themselves from the Trojans. p. 15.But why not, as well from the Greeks and Egyptians? But the Bishop of St. Asaph is so just to Truth, and so little a Friend to popular Fables, that he fairly gives up Geoffrey before he attacks Hector Boethius; could any thing be more fairly and impartially done? or more convincing, that he onelyonly designed to find out Truth in these matters, without regard to that fondness some Men still have for these British Antiquities? For there are and will be some (and those p. xixnot wholly unlearned) who are naturally inclined to believe Fables; and have so passionate a zeal for such things, that they cry out upon all discoveries of this kind, as injuries to their Countrey, if not to the Royal Line.

But may it not justly seem strange, that when our polite and learned Neighbours have endeavoured with so much care to reform their Histories, and to purge away all fabulous Antiquities out of them; we of this Island should grow angry and impatient when any undertake so generous a design? What injury is it thought to be to the Royal Line of France, that Hunibaldus his Antiquities find no longer place in their Histories? And yet nothing seems more glorious, than to have their Royal Line deduced long before the time that Alexander took Babylon. For according to Hunibaldus his Account, which he took he saith out of an ancient MS. of Vastaldus (such another Authour as Veremundus) the Franks went from Troy under the Conduct of Francio towards the Palus Maeotis just about the time that Aeneas went for Italy, where they fixed and built the City Sicambria, and at last removed into Germany under Marcomir the Son of Priamus, and Sunno the Son of Antenor. After Francio, Hunibaldus sets down a formal Succession of Kings of two several Races, 16 in the first, and 31 in the second. All which he gives a very particular account of, as to the times of their Reign for above 413 years before Christ's Nativity. And although this ancient Succession of Kings was a long time received and magnified, as appears by Lazius and P. Aemilius, and Fordon quotes Sigebert for it;Scotichr. l. 3. c. 19. yet now their learned Historians are ashamed to mention it, much more to plead for it, and to charge those with a degree of Lese-Majesty who call it in question.

Suffridus Petrus hath written the Antiquities of Friseland much in the way that Hector Boethius hath done those of Scotland. Suffr. Petr. de Origine Frisiorum, l. 3. c. 2.He tells a very grave Story concerning a Province in the Indies called Fresia, from whence a Colony was sent under Friso, Saxo and Bruno, who went into Alexander's Army; and for this he quotes old Frisian Rythms, and one Patrocles, an old Indian Writer; and besides, he hath all the Advocate's Common places of Tradition, common Fame, c. 3.the Testimonies of their own Historians, and he names Andreas Cornelius, p. xx(it seems there was a Cornelius Frisius as well as Hibernicus) Solco Fortemannus, Occo Scherlensis, Joh. Uleterpius, and several others, who with one Consent deliver these Antiquities. But, saith he, ye will object, that in so long a time and amidst so many Wars such Antiquities could hardly be preserved. To that he answers, That Friso being admirably skilled in Greek Learning set up a publick School at Stauria near the Temple of Stavo, and in the Temple a Library on purpose for Antiquities (like that of Icolmkill) and besides a Palace was built by Uffo, wherein was contained the Effigies of all their Kings from Friso, (who came to Friseland just 313 years before Christ's Nativity) to the time of Charlemagn, for 1113 years. And are not these Antiquities very well attested? yet since Ubbo Emmius hath confuted them, no learned Advocate hath appeared in vindication of them.

Is it any disparagement to the Royal Line of Spain to have the first Succession of Kings there disputed; viz. from Jubal to Melicola the 24th King from him, who is said to have reigned there, the very year after the destruction of Troy? So very punctual are the Authours of Fabulous Antiquities. And if you believe them, they have good ancient Authours and the Tradition of their Countrey for them; haec nostri Majores multis Libris tradiderunt, saith the pretended Berosus. And by these helps, we have great light given us into the Antiquities of Europe; for thereby we understand that Janus, (who was somewhat elder than Gathelus, being Noah himself) gave Tuysco the Countrey from the Tanais to the Rhyne, Italy to Gomer, the Celtick Provinces to Samothes, and Celtiberia to Jubal. And this was just 131 years after the Floud; Gomer went into Italy the 10th year of Saturn the Father of Jupiter Belus; in the 12th Jubal went into Celtiberia, and not long after Samothes, called Dis, founded the Celtick Colonies; among which were the Britains, and from him their Druids were called Samothei: after Jubal among the Celtiberians reigned Iberus his Son, from whom came the name of Iberi; and among the Celtae, Magus the Son of Samothes in the 51st year of Ninus, who succeeded Jupiter Belus: This Magus in the Scythian Language is p. xxiMagog, and from him came so many terminations of the Names of Towns as Rhotamagum, Noviomagum, Juliomagum, Caesaromagum, &c. In the 34th of Semiramis, Jubelda Son of Iber, succeeded in Celtiberia; in the time of Ninias, Son to Semiramis, reign'd Sarron among the Celtae, from him the learned Gauls were called Sarronidae, the same I suppose with our Advocate's Sanachies. In the 20th of Arius, p. 14.Brigus reigned in Celtiberia, and in the 29th Dryius among the Celtae; nothing can be more natural than to derive the Druids from him: who being converted, the Advocate tells us,p. 13. became their first Monks, and in the Irish Version of the New Testament the wise Men are translated Druids; therefore the Druids were originally Irish. In the time of Aralius the seventh King of Babylon, Bardus was King over the Celtae, and he was the Inventour of Musick and Verses; and from him came the Bards, who were the Poets of their Traditions, as the Advocate styles them.p. 14. After him succeeded Longo, then Bardus junior, after him Lucus, and then Celtes, and Galates, Narbon, Lugdus, Beligius, Allobrox, Romus, Paris, Lemannus, Galatas junior, and Francus.

Must we allow all these noble Antiquities for fear of shortning the Royal Lines of the Princes of Europe? And yet here is a great appearance of Exactness, a pretence to ancient Records, and to the common Tradition of the several Countries; for Berosus appeals both to Tradition and Writing; and so doth Manetho in the continuation of him, quae ex nostris Historicis vel corum relationibus consecuti fumus; so that here we have the two Supporters of Antiquities, which the Advocate builds upon, viz. Tradition and Records. And Metasthenes, another pretended continuer of Berosus saith, he took all out of the Royal Library at Susae, where the Persian Annals were preserved. But notwithstanding all these fair shews and specious pretences, there is not a Man of tolerable judgment in Europe, who would venture his Reputation to plead for these Antiquities.

But the learned Advocate saith,p. 2. That their Antiquities have been received with great applause for many hundreds of years by all Historians, Antiquaries and Criticks of other Nations who had any occasion to p. xxiitake notice of their affairs. These are very high expressions, and argue a good assurance in the very beginning of his Book. For my part, I do not pretend to acquaintance with all Historians, Antiquaries and Criticks for many hundreds of years; and so there may have been some, for any thing I know, who have applauded their Histories from 330 years before Christ; but upon my little knowledge in Books, I dare venture to name him ten who have applauded the Antiquities of Berosus and Manetho, for one who hath allowed theirs. But such hath been my misfortune that I have met with Historians, Antiquaries and Criticks, who have been far from applauding them; such a one was **Hoc solum judicamus, quae de Scotis & corum Regibus ab anno 330. ante caput aerae Christianae, cum Alexander Macedo rerum potiretur in Oriente usque ad Fergusium 2. Regem Scotiae quadragesimum, cujus initium conjicitur à Scotis Scriptoribus in annum Christi 404. qui ejectos è Britannia Scotos dicitur reduxisse, non ex annalibus vetustis vetustos autores habentibus, sed ex foreign traditionibus à recentioribus deprompta memorantur, ea nos pro certis habere non posse. Scimus enim quam lubrico atque instabili fundamento nitantur. Quinimo ne ista quidem satìs certa nobis videntur, quae à Fergusii 2. initio, & Scotorum reditu in Britanniam in rebus Scoticis recitantur ad A. D. 829. quo Picti scribuntur in Britannia à Scotis esse deleri 6. scil. anno Kenethi 2. Regum hujus gentis, ut Traditiones habent LXIX. Vbb. Em. Rer. Chronolog. l. 5. p. 198.Ubbo Emmius, who declares his opinion freely, That he could not allow any Certainty in them, because they depend not upon any ancient Annals, but unwritten Traditions; and he not onelyonly speaks thus of the first Succession of Kings from Fergus I. to the second, but from Fergus II. to the destruction of the Picts by Kenneth, which he reckons Anno Dom. 829. But another of the same Character, both an Historian, Antiquary and Critick, viz. ††De primorum gentis regum initiis multa haud dubie fabulosa habent Scotorum, quemadmodum & aliarum gentium postremis demum temporibus, compositi aut conficti Annales; itaque fabulosa, quae & tempora ipsa quibus tribuuntur, falsi arguunt, missa facimus, neque pro nostro ea faciunt instituto. Boxhorn. Hist univers. p. 878.M. Zuerius Boxhornius hath passed a severer Censure upon them, for he saith, without doubt their Antiquities are Fabulous; and their pretended ancient Annals but lately made. These may serve at present, to shew that all Historians, Antiquaries and Criticks have not so much applauded their Antiquities.

But this is not all, for the Advocate saith, they have done it for many hundreds of years. What! before they were known to the World? For Hector Boethius was the first Person who pretended to give such a clear account of them after the Discovery of Veremundus and Cornelius Hibernicus at Icolmkill; and it is not many hundreds of years since he wrote, his Book being first printed since the beginning of the sixteenth Century. And what account had they of their first Antiquities before? Joh. Major p. xxiiiindeed was printed about five years before him, by the same Badius Ascensius, and he was no great Critick, but a very Scholastick Historian, and a Man of great esteem in his time, as the Advocate confesseth;Defence, &c. p. 37. but he is so far from applauding the remote Antiquities of his own Countrey, that he calls the Story of Gathelus and Scota and their coming out of Greece and Egypt a mere Figment, Joh. Major, Hist. Scot. l. 1. f. 17. c. 9.and invented onelyonly to match the Britains, who derived themselves from the Trojans, and he condemns their Annals about Simon Brek; which shews what a regard he had to their Authority. And when he comes to Fergus he sets down the old Verses about the time of it;c. 11. but seems to give very little credit to them; for he first mentions Bede's Account about Reuda, and then relates what their Annals say, i. e. their old Verses (for he quotes no other) and then saith this doth not contradict Bede; for saith he, Regni debile fundamentum Fergusius jecit; he laid a very slender beginning of a Monarchy, which was after inlarged by Reuda, whom he makes to be Rether, and therein contradicts Hector's Veremundus and the Catalogues of their Kings, according to which Reuda succeeds him. So that these Antiquities were so far from being universally received abroad that they went down very hardly at home. And this same Historical Schoolman expresly saith, that Fergus had no other Right, l. 4. c. 17.but what the People gave him; and that it is in their Power to take it away; which he not onelyonly asserts, but endeavours to prove in a Scholastick manner as far as Septimò & Finaliter. And is not this a degree of Lese-Majesty above the endeavouring to shorten the Royal Line? And they had far better deny any such Person as Fergus, than to make him a King upon such terms, which overthrow the Monarchy.

But who are these foreign Historians, Antiquaries and Criticks, who at any time have so much applauded these Antiquities? Joseph Scaliger did indeed applaud his own Wit for his Criticism about Scoto-Brigantes in Seneca's Verses. But what is this to Fergus his coming so soon into Scotland? For Scaliger himself there grants,Scalig. in Tibull. l. 4. that these Scoto-Brigantes were still in Ireland; and he believes that Claudius did make an attempt upon them there, because Juvenal mentions the Coasts of Iuverna p. xxivas brought under the Roman Power. Scoti sunt in Hibernia adhuc, non in Britannia, are Scaliger's own Words. And I wonder to see Buchanan labour so hard about this passage,Buch. l. 2. p. 22.2. to so little purpose. But the Advocate saith that the same Scaliger in his Notes on Eusebius hath a most learned and full Proof of their Antiquity, Defence of the Antiquity, &c. p. 80.too learned to be answered by any Adversary. What doth he mean by their Antiquity? That of the Nation? No one denies it. That of their settlement in Scotland 330 years before Christ? That is to be proved, for Scaliger doth it not.Scalig. in Euseb. n. 2060. He affirms, That the Brigantes were a People of Ireland, and that during the flourishing of the Roman Empire, they made frequent incursions into Britain, and for proof he brings the Testimony of Pausanias about Antoninus his beating the Brigantes in Britain; Pausan. in. Arcad.and the Inscriptions in Scotland, wherein mention is made of the Leg. 2. which signifie very little to this purpose. For why could not the second Legion fight against the Brigantes, supposing them to be Britains, as well as supposing them to be Irish? But Scaliger's opinion was this, The Brigantes and the Britains were two distinct People; while they continued at home, they were called by no other Name, but when they made excursions abroad, then they were called Scotobrigantes and Scotobritanni; and so the word Scot, he saith, is not a proper Name, but Appellative; and not Irish but British, for those who go from home in hopes of Booty, as the names of Bedwin and Saracen; and so as the Arabs were after called Saracens, so these Brigantes, when they so much infested Britain in Claudian's time, and after were called Scoti. Now what there is in all this, that should so much please the Advocate, I cannot imagine. He is very angry with the Bishop of St. Asaph for representing their Ancestours as a company of barbarous Pilferers and Robbers (although he onelyonly produces the Testimony of Gildas) how then comes he to be so much pleased with Scaliger, Defence, &c. p. 104, 106, 108.who makes the Name Scot to signifie so much? I had thought he should have been more concerned to have disproved such a reproachfull Etymologie than to have magnified this Discourse of Scaliger so highly. But where is it that he mentions the first Succession of their Kings with approbation, or Fergus his p. xxvcoming into Scotland before Christ's Nativity? All that he saith is, That the Scots might be a Nation before they were known by that Name, (and who doubts it) as the Burgundians and Lombards were: and that the Brigantes out of Ireland might make inroads and excursions into Britain in the flourishing times of the Empire. And I see no reason to deny this, although it be not sufficiently proved. But the question is about a standing Monarchy in Scotland from the time of Fergus I. and of this Scaliger saith not a word. For these Brigantes coming out of Ireland might fix there for some time, and return again to Ireland, as Gildas saith they did afterwards, or they might fix as a scatter'd People not united under a Monarchy, as Fordon saith, they did before Fergus his coming. So that if their Antiquities be no more applauded by other Antiquaries and Criticks than they are by Scaliger, this Argument will come to very little.

And yet Salmasius and the rest he mentions,Defence, &c. p. 126. say much less than Scaliger; Salmasius onelyonly useth Scaliger's Criticism about the Scoto-Brigantes without adding any thing. Lipsius unhappily calls Galgacus a Scot; which was an improper expression, as I have proved in the proper place; because it is so evident from Tacitus, that the Caledonians were not Scots; unless it be taken for Scythians, (of which afterwards) but by Scots here we mean such as came out of Ireland to settle in Britain; and such Galgacus and his Souldiers were not. And the like impropriety Bergier, though a learned Antiquary fell into,Hist. de grand. Chemins, l. 1. c. 10. n. 9. when he interprets the Caledonians by Scots; but such as Dempster is frequently guilty of, when he calls the Britains English, because the English dwelt in Britain afterwards. But improper expressions where they fall from learned Men by chance ought rather to be passed over with silence than made use of as Arguments; unless those who use them go about to prove what is implied in them. Sigonius his Name stands among the rest, being indeed a learned Historian, Antiquary and Critick; but not one word can I find produced out of him in his whole Book. What Baronius saith rela…es to the Conversion of the Scotish Nation, and not to these Antiquities; of which I have treated at large in the following Book.Defence, &c. p. 107, 108. Andr. p. xxviFavin and P. Aemilius speak onelyonly of an Alliance between Achaius King of the Scots and Charles the great; and what is this to Fergus and the Succession of Kings for 330 years before Christ's Nativity? which he saith in the beginning was applauded by all Historians, p. 2.10.Antiquaries and Criticks, and as though this were not extravagant enough,p. 126. he saith afterwards, that Baronius, Scaliger, Salmasius, Lipsius, Sigonius, Favin and others of the first rank (too many to be named) have passionately defended their Antiquity, and not onelyonly sustained but praised their Histories. Whereas not one of these produced by him speaks any thing to the matter in question. But we hope to see these things better cleared in the third Part of Sir R. Sibbald's Scotia Antiqua, where he has promised to give a particular account of the State of the Scots in Britain before they had Kings, then under Kings from Fergus I. to Fergus II. and from thence to Malcolm Canmore. If he doth clear these Parts of their Antiquities, he will doe a great thing; and for my part, I shall be as willing to believe Fergus to have come into Britain in the time of Alexander as any time after, provided there be sufficient Evidence to prove it; which must be somewhat more convincing than his Majesty's Advocate hath been pleased to make use of; but I remember Scaliger's Censure of Claudian, addit de ingenio quantum deest materiae.

Therefore from the Testimony of Historians, Antiquaries and Criticks, I proceed to examine the Argumentative part of his Book; and setting aside all common Places about Historical certainty, Tradition, common Fame, &c. I shall keep close to the point before us, and examine the force and strength of his Reasoning, which consists in these things.

p. 6.(1.) That upon the same Reason we question their Antiquities, we may call in question the Roman, Iewish, Greek, French, Spanish Antiquities, all which depended upon Tradition without Records for a long time.

This is indeed a material Objection; for we ought not to give a partial Assent to some Antiquities, and deny it to others, if there be the same ground either to give or deny Assent to all. But this must be examined.

p. xxvii(1.) As to the Roman Antiquities, he cites a passage in Livy, Liv. l. 6. init.in which he saith, that the use of Letters was not then ordinary; the onelyonly certain preserver of the memory of things past (so Livy's Words are to be understood, rarae per ea tempora Literae, una custodia fidelis memoriae rerum gestarum, and not as the Advocate with too much art, hath translated them, that the best Records were the faithfull Remembrance of things past. For if this were Livy's meaning why doth he complain of the want of the common use of Letters, when he saith Tradition is the best way to preserve the memory of things? Which is to make Livy speak inconsequently.) But he goes on saying, that what Memorials were left by the High Priests, or were in publick or private hands were most part destroyed in the burning of the Town. He doth not say all were lost, but the most part. This Livy alledgeth to excuse the shortness and obscurity of his first Books for want of sufficient Records; and he speaks like a very judicious Historian in it. And when he gives an Account of the remote Antiquities of Rome, he is far from confident asserting them, but he speaks with great Modesty and Discretion about them; saying that he would neither affirm nor deny them; being rather built on Poetical Fables than any certain Monuments of affairs at that time, that an allowance must be made to Antiquity; which was wont consecrare Origines suas, to make their beginnings as sacred and venerable as they could. But as to such things he would be no Advocate either for or against them. Then he proceeds to deliver the common Tradition about Aeneas his coming into Italy, and Ascanius succeeding him; but he cannot tell whether Ascanius the Son of Creusa, or another the Son of Lavinia; quis enim rem tam veterem pro certo affirmet? Who can be certain in such remote Antiquities? And yet at that time it was thought a great disparagement to the Royal Line to have it question'd whether it were the elder Ascanius, because the Julian Family, as Livy there saith, derived themselves from him who was called Julus. It is true, Livy after this, relates the Roman Antiquities down to the burning of the City, when so many Records were lost; but we are to consider, that the Romans had certain Annals before that time, and that some of them p. xxviiiwere preserved. That they had Annals both publick and private appears by Livy's own Words, who mentions both the Commentarii Pontificum and the publica & privata monumenta;De Orat. l. 2. c. 12. and Cicero affirms that the Romans from the beginning had Annals made up by the Pontifex Maximus of the transactions of every year; and these were publickly exposed in a Table in his House that the People might be satisfied about them; and these he saith were called Annales Maximi; which he adds were continued down to the time of Mucius Scaevola, who was Pontifex Maximus about A. U. C. 623. These, as Servius saith,Serv. in Virg. Aen. l. 1. v. 377. were after made up into 80 great Books, and were the standing Monuments of their Antiquities. And it is observable that the Authour of the Book de origine Gentis Romanae, as Vossius and others take notice,Voss. de Hist. Lat. l. 1. c. 1. inserts several things as taken out of the Pontifical Annals which hapned before the building of Rome; from whence they do justly infer, that matters of more remote Antiquity were put into them, whether by the first Pontifex Max. in Numa's time or after it is impossible now to determine. It seems at first the People were not permitted to view these Annals, as Canuleius in Livy complains;Liv. l. 4. c. 3. but afterwards they were exposed to all.c. 7. And it appears by Licinius Macer in Livy, that the Libri Lintei (which seem to have been for the same purpose with the Annales Maximi but composed by the Magistrates) were preserved in Aede Monetae, c. 20.and in them the Names of the Magistrates were inserted; and in the same place Livy takes notice of the Annales prisci, and the Libri Magistratuum for determining a point about the Consuls of a year long before the burning of Rome; which shews that Livy did not think all their Records then destroyed.c. 20. And afterwards he saith in the same Book, disputing about another Consul, that Augustus rebuilding the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius, found there in thorace linteo the name of that Consul. So that the Romans had not onelyonly the Pontifical Annals but Civil too, being made up by the Magistrates, and therefore called Libri Magistratuum by Livy, which he distinguishes from the Annales Prisci. And besides these Livy mentions private Records among them;In Bruto, c. 16. of which Cicero speaks, which belonged to particular Families: and there is no probability these should be all lost in the burning of the City; for the p. xxixCapitol was not burnt, in which probably after the Romans found the Gauls coming upon them, they preserved their ancient Annals. And it is considerable, that Dionysius Halicarnasseus quotes a passage of Antiochus Syracusanus, Dionys. Antiq. Rom. l. 1.(who lived before the burning of Rome, and wrote concerning the affairs of Italy) wherein he saith, that he took his History out of ancient and undoubted Records: which shews that there were certain written Annals both at Rome and in other Cities of Italy very early;f. 2. and the same Dionysius quotes the Domestick Annals of the Sabins, and Festus the History of Cuma.Fest. v. Roma. So that the Roman Histories were built on better foundation than the very uncertain Tradition of the Natives; p. 7.which the Advocate is pleased to make the surest Foundation of all Histories; but I am so much of another Opinion, that I think it (since the shortning of Mens lives) the certain foundation of none. Let now the Reader judge whether the case of the Antiquities in dispute be the same with that of the Romans; for here are no ancient Annals pretended near the time of Fergus I. nor in the time of any King of the first Race; no nor from Fergus II. till after the Destruction of the Picts; nor any Record yet produced for a long time after that; how then can any persons pretend that if we reject their Antiquities we must reject the Roman?

But this is not all, for he goes higher, and saith the same objections will lie,

(2.) Against the Jewish Antiquities. For saith he,p. 6. the Iewish History had no historical Warrant for the first 2000 years but Tradition, and after that time their transactions were mentioned in very few foreign Histories; and Annals of their own Priests were thought good Historical Foundations in the opinion of Iosephus even for the Sacred History. And not long after he saith, that the Iewish History was challenged by Apion upon the same ground that theirs is now quarrell'd by the Bishop of St. Asaph.p. 9. p. 132.This looks somewhat strange among us, for the Antiquities of any particular Nation so far short of the Jewish, to be parallel'd with them in point of Credibility; since the Records of Scripture are own'd to be divine and sacred, and not merely built on the authority of Tradition, or the Annals of the p. xxxJewish Priests. Whatever Josephus or other Jews might say in defence of their Antiquities against the Greeks, we that own our selves to be Christians ought to look on Moses and the Prophets under a higher Character. I know a late Critick in great Vogue among some, hath endeavoured to reduce the Sacred History to the Authority of the ancient Annals of the Iews, but withall adding that we have onelyonly some imperfect Abridgments of them, much like that which the Rector of Ranfrew made of the Book of Pasley,p. 32, 33. which the Advocate saw in Sir R. Sibbald's Library. A Doctrine so unreasonable and mischievous in the Consequences of it, that I wonder it hath hitherto passed so easily through so many hands. But this is not my present business. I am now onelyonly to shew the vast disparity of these Antiquities in question, and those of the Jews. It's very true that Apion did object against them, because the Greek Writers took so little notice of them. But how doth Josephus answer him? He shews, That the Greeks were very late Writers of History, and therefore incompetent Iudges of matters of so great Antiquity; and he proves that the more ancient Nations as the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians had a most lasting way of preserving their Histories, for they had publick Annals made by their wisest Men and kept in sacred Places, but the Greeks were very defective in these things; having no publick Writings in their Temples or elsewhere; and that they had not the use of Letters in the time of the Trojan War; and their first Historians were little elder than the Persians War against the Greeks. And this reason he gives of the dissonancy of the Greek Historians, because they had no publick Annals, which would have prevented Errours, and kept Men from a power of deceiving. But great care he saith from the most ancient times was taken of such things among the Egyptians and Babylonians. And for their Ancestours, he saith they exceeded all others in their exactness this way, committing the care of these things to their High Priests and Prophets. But the authority of Writing was not allow'd promiscuously to all, but certain Prophets were pitched upon who wrote the most remote Antiquities by divine inspiration, and the matters in their own times plainly and according to Truth; and therefore p. xxxisaith he, we have no such multitude of Books differing from each other, as the Greeks have, but onelyonly 22, containing an account of all times past, written with great Fidelity and Authority. Afterwards their Annals were continued, but not with equal Authority, the Succession of their Prophets failing. And to shew of how great credit these Books (of the first sort) are among us; in so long time, saith he, no Man hath dared either to add, or to take away, or to transpose any thing. Which is utterly inconsistent with the Principles of the late Critick; for without a liberty of abridging and transposing and inserting, his new Inventions come to nothing. But as to the silence of other Nations about them, he shews, that they were a People who lived in great retirement, that the Romans themselves were a considerable People before the Greeks knew them; and after all he shews they were known to the Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks, which he proves from many particular Testimonies. Now what is there parallel to these things in the present case? Have they produced any such publick and sacred Annals written and preserved with so much care, as the ancient Jews had? Have they had a Succession of Prophets among them whose Books are preserved to this day with great Veneration without addition or diminution? What mean then such strange Comparisons? Can they produce any one Authour contemporary with Fergus I. and his Successours, who mention that Succession? As Josephus brings the Egyptian, Phoenician, Chaldean Writers to attest the Story of the Scripture.

(3.) As to the Greek Antiquities he saith the Greeks could have no Records for many hundreds of years before they wrote. And what follows,p. 7. but that therefore there is great uncertainty in the Antiquities of Greece till that time? For which reason Varro, Censor. de die Natali, c. 21.that great and judicious Antiquary rejected two Parts in three, of the Times of the Greeks; the one he said was wholly in the dark for want of Records, and the other Fabulous; because, as Josephus observes, they had no publick Annals, but their first Writers were Poets, who minded to write rather things entertaining than true. But we are of late told,Preface to the Prospect of Ireland. that this saying of Varro might hold as to the Greek Antiquities; but it is unjustly applied by Camden to the Antiquities of other Nations; p. xxxiifor the utmost Eastern Nations the Chineses, and the utmost Western the Irish have preserved their Antiquities far beyond the time which Varro allows for true History. I grant Varro intended this chiefly for the Greeks, who made the greatest noise with their Antiquities then; and yet Varro himself, as St. Augustine tells us,Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 18. c. 2. began his Account of the Roman Antiquities, with the Succession of the Sicyonian and Athenian Kings; not as though he would deliver it for certain Historical Truth, but as the most common received opinion. And in the Fabulous times, he might endeavour to pick out what Antiquities he thought came nearests to History. As to the Chineses, they are very remote from us, and we have had different accounts of them, as appears by comparing Gonsales Mendoza and Martinius together;Mendoza de Reg. Chinae, l. 3. c. 1. and of their Antiquities as delivered by the former,Vbb. Em. Rer. Chronol. l. 5. p. 214. a learned Man hath said that they seem to him like Manetho's Egyptian Dynasties. However Scaliger thought fit to insert the Succession of their Kings in his Chronological Canons, Scalig. Canon. Isagog. l. 2. p. 158.and makes the beginning of that Empire coincident with the end of the thirteenth Egyptian Dynasty; but in his Notes upon it, he complains of the want of farther information about them. Which the World hath since in great measure received by Martinius, both in his description of the Countrey, and the first Decad of the History from the beginning of the Empire to the Nativity of Christ. But their way of preserving Antiquities was peculiar to themselves, and therefore these cannot very well be made a Parallel for the Scotish or Irish Antiquities. Martinius hath indeed given a very plausible Account of the remote Antiquities of China, Martin. Sinic. Histor. l. 1. p. 12.20.but in such a manner as shews that even the Chineses had a dark and fabulous time as well as the Greeks, and he tells us, that themselves acknowledge that before the Reign of Fohius they have no certain account of things because then they had no use of Letters; but afterwards, they look upon the Succession of their Kings as delivered down to them with great Fidelity. But there are two things this certainty of their History depended upon. (1.) A fixed Rule for the computation of Times, without which it is impossible any Nation should have an exact account of the ancient Succession of their Kings. And herein lay the great accuracy of the Chineses that they were very early p. xxxiiigiven to the finding out the best methods for calculation; and they used a Cycle of 60 years, 2670 years before Christ's Nativity; and therefore Martinius magnifies the Chineses, especially for their skill and exactness in the Succession of their Princes; which it is impossible to give a certain account of without a fixed measure of time; and therefore it hath been so often said that the Greeks had no certain History before the Olympiads. (2.) The Chineses did not suffer any Persons to write History that would, but some of great Reputation were appointed after the Emperours decease to write his Life; which being approved, was allowed as the onelyonly authentick History of him, and these being put together made up their publick Annals, which are preserved to this day. For, notwithstanding the Persecution of their Histories in the time of Chingus, who endeavoured to suppress them,Martin. Sinic. Hist. l. 6. p. 241. that he might be thought the Founder of the Empire; yet his Son opposing his design, and many learned Men being banished upon it, there were means used to preserve their Annals; but Semedo saith,Semedo Part 1. ch. 22. they could never recover a perfect Account of the first beginning of that famous Empire.

Now before any other Nation can presume to vye with the exactness of the Chineses in their Antiquities, they must first shew us what means they had for the computation of times, by which we may judge of their Antiquity and Succession of their Kings; and next they must give an equal Account of the Care taken time enough to preserve their History of publick Annals, as the Eastern People and the Romans did.

For instance,Prospect of Ireland by P. W. p. 6. we are told from a late Irish Antiquary Geoffrey Keting, that the Posterity of Gathelus and Scota, or the Milesian Race settled in Ireland, A. M. 2736. after the Floud 1086. after Moses passing the Red Sea 192. before Christ's Nativity 1308. from whence the Antiquity of the Irish Nation, p. 15.is said not to be parallel'd, unless by the Chineses onelyonly.

Here is a pretence to very great Antiquity, and an appearance of exact Calculation; but I onelyonly ask by what Cycles the Irish proceeded when they began; how they could adjust the time so well to the Age of the World; or what other certain way they had which might be reduced to it. If they had none, all this might be onelyonly Fancy and p. xxxivOpinion, unless there were some Characters of Time fixed and certain by Eclipses and Astronomical observations, or certain Periods of time, or coincident passages, which might connect the year of their descent into Ireland, with such a year of the World, or after the Floud. If nothing of this kind be produced, we must be excused if we do not yet think the Irish Antiquities parallel to those of China. For if there be no such Characters of Time which may direct us in comparing one thing with another, it is possible that there may be one or two thousand years difference in the Computation, and yet neither able to confute the other. For suppose I should say that the Posterity of Gathelus, came into Ireland just 308 years before Christ's Nativity, here is 1000 years difference. That is a small matter, you will say, in so great Antiquity; but as small as it is, some account ought to be given of a thousand years. Now I desire to have some evident proof brought me of some Event in the World which happened 1308 years before Christ's Nativity, to which the Irish descent must be coincident. To make this more plain by Example, suppose the Question be in what Age of the World the Peloponnesian War began; we should by no means think it sufficient for any Man presently to set down, it was such a year of the World, such a year from the Floud, so long before Christ; but we demand some certain Character of this time, i. e. such which agrees to that and to no other; and here, whosoever intends to give satisfaction, will search Thucydides, Diodorus and Ptolemy to find out some undoubted Character; as that Thucydides saith that Pythodorus was then Archon at Athens, and it was the year of the Olympick Solemnities. Diodorus saith, this was the 87, Olympiad, and that Apseudes was Archon the year before; Ptolemy saith he was Archon in the year of Nabonassar 316. So by comparing the Olympiads and the years of Nabonassar with the years of the World, we may come to a certainty in this matter. And besides Thucydides mentions a great Eclipse the first year of the War, which the Astronomers say was 317 of Nabonassar, when Euthydemus succeeded Pythodorus at Athens. Such a method of proceeding by certain Characters of time, is a Way to convince reasonable Men; but without any of these to think to impose upon Mankind under a pretence of exact Calculation, p. xxxvargues too great presumption upon the Credulity of Mankind. Thus as to the coming of Fergus I into Scotland just 330 years before Christ, which the Advocate saith all their Historians affirm; let them produce any one certain Character of that time out of such Annals as were written within the compass of knowing the Truth of it, and we will never dispute this matter more.

But to proceed,

(4.) As to the French Antiquities; p. 7.which the Advocate saith, may be more justly questioned on these Grounds than theirs, we onelyonly desire them to be as ingenuous as the late learned Writers of their Antiquities have been, who reject all before the Merovingian Race, as either Fabulous, or so doubtfull and uncertain, that they make no Account of it, unless it be what they find in the Roman Authours concerning the Franks, Rer. Francis. To. 1.as may be seen in Hadrianus Valesius, a learned Historian, Antiquary and Critick.

(5.) As to the Spanish, which are joined with the French; what relates to their Antiquities before the Romans War in Spain, we grant to be parallel with theirs. For although Strabo saith,Strab. Geogr. l. 3. p. 96. they had the use of Letters, and had some Records of ancient times among them; yet they are utterly lost. And although Reinesius de Deo Endovellico seems to think, that Annius had some Fragments of those Antiquities which he mixed with his own Inventions, yet I can see no reason for it; because he would then have alledged the old Spanish Records, and not have fathered his Antiquities on Persons so remote as Berosus and Manetho.

But if they had the use of Letters and Records among them, might not the Irish and Scotish derive both from them? I answer, That the coming of the Irish immediately from Spain and not from Britain is not so evidently proved that any thing can be built upon it. Camden and Sir James Ware two learned Antiquaries both think Ireland first peopled from Britain; Camd. Brit. p. 728. Antiq. Hibern▪ c. 2. p. 11.and Camden offers good Reasons for his Assertion, as the agreement of the British and Irish Languages in very many words; the similitude of Customs and Manners; it's being anciently called the lesser Britain, and the inhabitants Britains; the conveniency of passage from Britain thither; p. xxxviwhich seem to be of far greater moment than any thing brought to prove the Legend of Gathelus and Scota and their posterity coming out of Spain. But because this opinion doth not seem to give any account of the Scoti in Ireland (from whence they certainly went into Scotland, as is now confessed on all hands) therefore I shall endeavour to clear this Matter, by proposing what seems most probable to me concerning the first Peopling of these Islands.

We are then to consider that the most ancient Geographers, as Strabo observes out of Ephorus, Strab. Geogr. l. 1. p. 23.divided the then known World into four Parts, the Eastern they called India, the Southern Aethiopia, the Western Celtia, and the Northern Scythia. And in the European Parts they knew but of two Nations beside the Greeks, and those are the Celtae and the Scythae. Those that inhabited Northward, saith Strabo, Strab. l. 1. p. 22.were called Scythae, and those to the West Celtae; who were likewise called Iberi and Celtiberi, as he affirms; and these peopled Spain and Gaul, and from thence spread into the Neighbour Countries; and among the rest came over into Britain: Which in the Book de Mundo commonly attributed to Aristotle, but by Buchanan to Theophrastus, is said, together with Ireland, (which are both there called the British Islands) to be situate in the Ocean not far from the Scythae and the Celtae. But the latter were so much nearer in Gaul, that it is very reasonable to believe the first habitation here was by the Celtae, Vit. Agric.who came from thence. And Tacitus truly observes, the agreement was so very great between the Gauls and the old Britains, that although he suspected the Silures might come immediately from Spain, (or rather from the Iberi, which Strabo saith was a more general Name, and some of these went into Ireland) but upon the whole matter, he concluded all the Southern parts of Britain to have been peopled immediately from Gaul. But as to the Caledonians he affirms them to have been of a German extraction: i. e. taking Germany in the extent he took it in, which went as far as Sarmatia, and took in Scandinavia; from whence in probability the Northern Parts of Britain, were first peopled. It is true that Tacitus calls them Britains as well as the Celtae; and however they were united in interest against the Romans, as Galgacus shews in his excellent Speech p. xxxviito them, yet Tacitus, we see, makes them of a different Extraction. And these were originally from the European Scythae, or from Scandinavia, which was abundantly peopled, and supplied other Countries, as Jornandes saith;Iornand. de Rebus Get. l. 1. c. 4. and that they were provided of Shipping very early, I have proved in the following Book, where I speak of the Original of the Picts. And besides what is there said to shew that those who dwell in those Northern parts, were then called Scythians, Scymnus Chius lately published out of Holstenius his Papers affirms that the Scythians extended from the Palus Maeotis to Countries wholly unknown to the Greeks.Holsten. Not. in in Steph. de Vrbibus, p. 378. For being tempted by the Rivers, as Olaus Rudbeck conjectures,Atlantic. c. 3. § 10. having no skill in Navigation or Astronomy, and the Woods in the first Ages of the World being unpassable, the People still went farther and farther by the Rivers side, till at last finding themselves bounded by the vast Mountains in those Northern parts and the Sea beyond them, they sate down there, and in time so replenished those parts, that they were willing to discharge themselves by sending Colonies abroad. To which end they accustomed themselves to the Sea, and so from thence these Scythians came into the Northern parts of Britain, where they had the Name of Caledonians; and upon new Supplies coming after the Romans had subdued the Southern Parts of Britain, were then called Picts. But of these things afterwards. That which I now design, is to shew that some of these Scythae being encouraged by the Adventures of others who had settled in Britain, passed by the Northern Islands and went into Ireland; and so the Celtae from Britain, who were called Iberi in Strabo, and these Scythae met there as they did in Britain. But Britain still retained its Name; and therefore to distinguish themselves from those who remained there, their Countrey was called Ibernia from the Iberi, and Scotia from these Scythae; for saith Walsingham, Walsingh. in Hypodigm. Neustriae.Scythae, Schythici, Scoti, Scotici are all one; which he took from Radulphus de Diceto, Imag. Histor. ad A. 1185. and Nennius expresly calls them Schythae, and Gildas the Irish Sea Vallem Scythicam; and Alfred in the English Translation of Orosius calls the Scots Scyttan; and the Germans both Scythians and Scots Scutten; and the old Britains Yscot, Britan p. …6.as Cambden hath already observed.

p. xxxviiiAnd it is considerable that a late Irish Antiquary tells us that a Part of their Countrey in their own Language is called Gaethluighe, Flaherty Ogygi, p. 67.i. e. Gothland, from the Goths or Scythians who took possession of it, He rather thinks the Getuli a People of Africa gave the Name; but of their coming into Ireland there is no probability. And in the same place he saith, that Lamfinnus was the first who brought a Colony thither out of Scythia; which he proves out of one of their most ancient Monuments.Acta Sanct. Hib. Mart. 6. p. 502. n. 40. And Colganus observes on the Life of St. Cladroe, that whereas they are said to be derived from Scota who is said to be Pharaoh's Daughter, the true Name he saith was Scytha; and that Name was given her because her Husband came from Scythia.Ogyg. p. 350. And the same Antiquary confesses that it appears by all their ancient Records, that they had their original from the Scythians, and Keting himself he saith at last yields it, and that the Name of Scota was given because the Milesian Race came out of Scythia.

And to confirm the peopling of Ireland from Britain and Scandinavia, Ogyg. p. 171. c. 8, 9. part 3.we are to observe that the Irish Antiquaries from their best Records do speak of two great Colonies which came thither from Britain, the one of the Belgae, of which Slangius or Slanius was the Head, who was the first Monarch of Ireland; wherein Giraldus Cambrensis is confessed to agree with their own Antiquities;Cambrens. Evers. c. 8. p. 57. and another of the Dannanae from the Northern parts of Britain under Nuadus. Ogyg. part 3. c. 10.But besides both these, and long after them they place the Dynasty of the Scots or Scythians under Herimon; Part 2. p. 85, 86.and the Psaltir Na-rann, a Book of great Authority among them saith that Herimon was the first King of the Scots in Ireland.War. Antiquit. Hibern. c. 2. And in his time, they say, the Picts follow'd them thither, But that seems to be too soon. However that they came from the same parts will appear very probable from what Bede speaks of the Picts coming from Scythia (i. e. Scandinavia) in their long Boats, Bed. l. 1. c. 1.and being carried by Tempest to the Northern parts of Ireland, he saith they there found gentem Scotorum, i. e. their Countreymen the Scythians; and they would fain have settled there with them. And when they came to treat, we find no difficulty as to their understanding one another, which there would have p. xxxixbeen, if the Scots had come out of Spain and the Picts out of Scandinavia. I know Bede there makes the Picts and Scots Languages to be different; but so they might be in continuance of time, although at first of the same original; as appears by the several Languages now in Europe, derived from the Original Gothick or Scythick Tongue, which is Mother to most of them; onelyonly the Celtick and Latin being mixed with it. But to return to Bede, he saith, the Scots persuaded the Picts to go to Britain, and take Possession of the Northern Parts, as the Britains had done of the Southern. After this they obtained Wives from the Scots in Ireland; which shews familiarity and mutual confidence (as being of the same extraction) and the Picts engaged that in a disputable Case, the Scotish Line should be prefer'd to their own. In process of time, saith Bede, some of the Scots themselves, hearing of the Goodness of the Western parts of Scotland, went thither under the Conduct of Reuda, and either by Force or Friendship took possession of them; and from thence they were called Dalreudini, from this Reuda and Daal which signifies a share or portion. This is all the Account Bede gives of this matter; wherein there is not a Word of Gathelus and Scota, or of Fergus his coming in the time of Alexander, or any time after. And it is somewhat strange, that such a Man as Bede, so inquisitive into these matters, so well acquainted with the Story of Icolmkil, or of the Monks of Hy or Jona should say nothing of all this. For he seems to have concealed nothing he knew or had heard of; and stuffs out his Books with some not very probable Relations. And therefore it is not likely he would have omitted the former Stories if he had heard of them.

(2.) The second Argument of any seeming force in the Advocate's Discourse is,p. 13. That their Histories were first transmitted to Posterity by the Druids in Verses; and it is probable some of these Druids being converted, became their first Monks, and so it was easie for them to inform their Monasteries, and that the Monks at Iona or Icolmkill kept the Records there from the foundation of the Monastery about A. D. 560. where their Kings were buried untill the Reign of Malcolm Can-more; that they had Annals in other Monasteries, as at Scoon, Paslay, p. xlPluscardin and Lindesfern, p. 24.Abercorn and Melross; and that they had Historians who compiled Histories from them;p. 25. among whom he reckons as the most ancient Veremundus a Spaniard, A. D. 1076. who dedicated his History to Malcolm Can-more; and Joh. Campbell, Turgott and Alredus Rivallensis, who wrote of their affairs before Fordon. p. 29.And he goes about to prove Veremundus could not be counterfeited by Hector Boethius, because he is cited by Balaeus, Holinshed, Gesner, Chambers; and because Hector gives an account to James V. that he was sent him from Icolmkill. Which is the substance of what he saith about their old Histories before Fordon.

To which I answer,

(1.) That here we have a very formal Pedigree of Historians, which might with equal probability have been carried back to Gathelus his first coming out of Egypt. For it is very hard to suppose so great a Prince, and Son to a King of Athens, should be without his Druids, or Sanachies, or Bards, who would transmit to Posterity his famous Actions; and therefore I cannot but wonder, that the learned Advocate should seem to stick at their ancient Origination and Descent; p. 15.and be so unwilling to go any farther back than their first settlement in Scotland. For no doubt the History of Gathelus and Scota were transmitted to Posterity the very same way that the other was; and the same Arguments will indifferently serve for both. Nay, why should the British History be questioned? since no doubt the Britains had Druids, Sanachies and Bards as well as the Scots or Irish. And yet the Advocate will by no means allow the British Antiquities, although they pretend to the very same Grounds which he makes use of to support the Scottish. If the Druids were good Historians in Scotland, why not much rather among the Britains; where Caesar saith they had their Original Institution and the most sacred Authority. But Buchanan absolutely denies that the Druids ever wrote Histories; Buchan. l. 2.and he affirms from Caesar, that when he came hither they had no Records or way of preserving the memory of things past; and Tacitus and Gildas could meet with no certain Account from Domestick Histories. And as to his Sanachies and Bards, I shall onelyonly give him Buchanan's Answer p. xliin his own Words. Quod autem ad Bardos & Seneciones veteris memoriae custodes quidam confugiunt, prorsus perridicule faciunt. Which he proves, because the Bards were an ignorant sort of People, that had no Monuments of Antiquity; and the Sanachies were Men wholly without Learning, and who lived by flattering great Men; and therefore no certain Account of things can be expected from them. And withall, saith he, since we find Historians liable to so many mistakes after all the pains and care they take to search after the Truth of things, what credit can be given to those who pretend to deliver History merely by their Memories?

But the Advocate objects,p. 16. that the Laws of Lycurgus were preserved in the Memories of Men for 600 years, as Plutarch observes; and the Scots and other Nations have preserved Laws for much longer time, without the help of Letters.

But is there no difference between Laws of daily Practice, and Antiquities, which depend merely upon Memory, where there is no use of Letters? And as to Laws themselves I shall onelyonly desire the learned Advocate to give an Account of their Macalpine Laws,Scotich. l. 4. c. 9. which Fordon saith were composed by Kenneth, who subdued the Picts. I know that Hector Boethius, Hect. Boeth. Hist. l. 10. f. 207.who stands out at nothing, pretends to deliver them as exactly as if he had lived at that time; and Lesly who follows him very carefully,Lesla. de Orig. Scot. l. 1. p. 71. sets them down as he found them in him. But what ancient Copy do they produce for these Laws? Not one Word of that. But was it not fit that he who had so many Kings should make a Body of Laws too? Fordon never pretends to know them, onelyonly he thinks there were some of them still remaining. Joh. Major takes no notice of them; Buchanan just mentions them, and saith they continued long after him, but how long he could not tell. But it is observable, that when he comes to mention the Laws of Alexander III. so long after him (for he died A. D. 1285. and the other, according to him, A. D. 854) he saith they were all antiquated by the negligence of the People and the length of Time. Buch. l. 7. p. 71.2.Now if the Laws so much later were quite forgotten, how come the Macalpin Laws to be so exactly preserved? But it may be there was another Chest of Laws at Icolmkill, besides that of MSS. p. xliiwhich Hector Boethius saith Fergus brought from the Sacking of Rome in the time of Alaric. Yet even that would prove that Records are the best preservers of Laws; and one would think no Advocate in the World could be of another opinion.

(2.) From the Druids I proceed to the first Monks of Scotland, who are said to have left Records in their Monasteries of the History of former times. The first Monastery there, is confessed to be that of the Island Iona,p. 23. or Hy, or Icolmkill, i. e. Hy the Cell of Columba, founded about the year 560. and there, the Advocate saith, their Records were kept from the Foundation to the Reign of Malcolm Can-more. Now we are fallen into an Age of some Light, such as it is, but whether it will be to the Advocate's satisfaction I know not. For Cummeneus Albus and Adamnanus, both Abbats of Hy not long after Columba, have given an Account of Columba the Founder of that Monastery; and both wrote before Bede's time. By them it appears that Columba came out of Ireland thither; and Adamnanus saith, he was the Son of Fedlimid the Son of Fergus, which Fergus, Ogyg. p. 471.say the Irish Antiquaries, was second Husband to Erica Daughter of Loarn, Brother to Fergus, who carried the first Colony into Scotland; and that Fergus, Grandfather to Columba, was Son to Conallus, Grandchild to Niellus Magnus King of Ireland about A. D. 405. in whose time St. Patrick was carried captive into Ireland. And so from the time of Columba's coming, and his Relation to the Kings both of Scotland and Ireland, they have endeavoured to fix the time of Fergus his coming with the first Colony into Scotland. Cambrens. Evers. p. 69.The account they give in short is this, that Carbre Riada was one of the Sons of Conar II. King of Ireland, about A. D. 165. from him the Family and Countrey where they lived was called Dalrieda (and they while in Ireland were styled Kings of Dalrieda) from him descended Eric the Father of Loarn, Ogyg. p. 468.and Fergus who went into Scotland. To this Fergus succeeded Domangardus, Comgallus, Gauranus and Conallus, the Son of Comgallus, in whose time Columba came into Scotland; for Adamnanus saith he conversed with Conallus the Son of Comgill; who according to Tigernacus and the Ulster Annals gave the Island Hy to Columba. p. xliiiBut Bede saith it was given by the Picts whom Columba converted to the Christian Faith. Bed. l. 3. c. 3. c. 4.Which must seem strange, if the Scots then had the possession of those Parts; and therefore the learned Primate of Armagh inclines to the former opinion.Primord. p. 703. The same Tigernacus in the Irish Annals makes Fergus the Son of Eric to have carried over the Dalredians into Britain six years after the death of St. Patrick; p. 610.and the old Authour cited by Camden confirms the Succession of Fergus from Conar, Camd. Britan. p. 707.and his being the first King of Albany; which agrees with the Irish Antiquaries saying that Carbre Riada the Ancestour to Fergus, was the Son of Conar Monarch of Ireland.

But suppose all this, that Columba was descended from one Fergus and related to the other, who went over with the Dalredians into Scotland; and that he was there in the time of Conallus Son to Comgill, Grandchild to this Fergus, how doth it hence appear that there was not another Fergus long before, and a Succession of Kings in Scotland from him?

To this the Irish Antiquaries reply, that their ancient Annals do give a clear Account of this Fergus his Race and Time of going into Scotland, but although they have the Succession of the Kings of Ireland long before, and the remarkable things done in their time, yet there is no mention at all of any Fergus or his Successours going to settle in Britain before this time. They do believe that there were Excursions made by some of the Kings of Ireland before; and I see no reason to question it,Ogyg. p. 464. even before the times mentioned by Gildas; but they utterly deny any foundation of a Monarchy there by Scots going out of Ireland before the time of Fergus the Son of Eric, and that 100 years later than the Scotish Antiquaries do place his coming;p. 472. for they make the first coming of this Colony to be A. D. 503. just the time which the Bishop of St. Asaph had pitched upon; but according to their Antiquities, Loarn the elder Brother was first King, and he dying Fergus succeeded A. D. 513. and because his Race succeeded in that Kingdom, therefore Fergus is supposed to have been founder of the Monarchy.

The Question now comes to this, whether the Irish or the Scotish Antiquaries go upon the better Grounds? For, here the Advocate's Common Places of Historical Faith, p. xlivCommon Fame, Domestick Tradition, &c. can determine nothing since these are equal on both sides, and yet there is a contradiction to each other about a matter of Fact. We must then appeal to the Records on both sides; and those who can produce the more Authentick Testimonies from thence are to be believed. The Advocate pleads that it is very credible that they had such, because they had Druids and Sanachies and Monks as well as those in Ireland; and that Columba founded a Monastery at Icolmkill, and their Kings were buried there for a long time. But where are the Annals of that Monastery? Or of any other near that time? To what purpose are we told of the Monasteries that were at Scoon, and Paslay, and Pluscardin, and Lindesfern, and Abercorn, unless their Books be produced?p. 25. It is by no means satisfactory to say they had two Books, their Register or Chartulary, and their Black Book wherein their Annals were kept, for we desire to see them of what colour soever they be, and to be convinced by Testimonies out of them, if they appear of sufficient authority. But if these cannot be produced, let them print the full Account of Irish Kings, which the Advocate in his Advertisement saith, he had lately seen in a very old MS. brought from Icolmkill, written by Carbre Lifachair, who lived six Generations before St. Patrick and so about our Saviour's time. St. Patrick died about the end of the fifth Century, being above 100 years old, if the Irish Historians may be believed; but how six Generations will reach from his birth to about our Saviour's time, is not easie to understand. For although the ancients differ'd much in computing Generations; yet Censorinus saith they generally called 25 or 30 years by the Name of a Generation. Censor. de die Natal. c. 17.Herodotus indeed extends a Generation to 100 years, yet even that will over doe here. But who was this Carbre Lifachair, who wrote so long since? I find one of that Name among the Kings of Ireland, Cambr. Evers. p. 71.about A. D. 284. and therefore I am apt to suspect that some body not very well versed in the Irish Language,Ogyg. p. 341. finding this Name among the Kings, made him the Authour of the Book. And the Irish Antiquaries speak with some indignation against those Scotish Writers who pretend to debate these matters of Antiquity relating to the Irish Nation, p. 464.without any skill in the Irish Language. p. xlvFor this Debate doth not concern the Saxons in Scotland (as all the Lowlanders are still called by the Highlanders) and many of the best Families of their Nobility setled there in the time of Malcolm Canmoir, Camd. Brit. p. 85.after he had married the Sister to Edgar; but it relating wholly to those who came out of Ireland, the Irish Antiquaries think it reasonable it ought to be determined by the Irish Annals.

But will not the same objections lie against the Irish Antiquities which have been hitherto urged against the Scotish? For why should we believe that the Original Irish were more punctual and exact in their Annals than those who went from thence into Scotland?

I answer, that a difference is to be made concerning the Irish Antiquities. For they either relate to what hapned among them before Christianity was received in Ireland or after. As to their remote Antiquities, they might have some general Traditions preserved among them, as that they were peopled from Britain and Scythia, and had Successions of Kings time out of mind; but as to their exact Chronology, I must beg leave as yet to suspend my Assent. For Bollandus affirms that the Irish had no use of Letters till Saint Patrick brought it among them; Actae Sanct. Mart. 17. Vit. Patric. § 4.at which their present Antiquary is much offended; and runs back to the Druids, as the learned Advocate doth. But neither of them have convinced me that the Druids ever wrote Annals. All that Caesar saith is,Ogyg. part 3. c. 30. p. 214. that in Gaul they made use of the Greek Letters; which they might easily borrow from the Greek Colony at Marseilles; but how doth it appear that they used these Letters in Ireland or Scotland? Or that they any where used them in any matters of Learning; which seems contrary to the Institution of the Druids, who were all for Memory, as Caesar saith, and thought Books hurtfull to the use of it. So that nothing could be more repugnant to their Discipline, than the 150 Tracts of the Druids, which St. Patrick is said to have cast into the Fire. p. 219.But I do not deny that they might have Genealogies kept up among them by their Druids and Sanachies and Bards, who made it their business; and so it was in Scotland, as appears by the Highlanders repeating the Genealogy of Alexander III. by heart. But the great Errour lay in fixing Times and Places, and p. xlviparticular Actions according to the Names of those Genealogies. And this was the true Reason of the mistake as to the Scotish Antiquities. For the Genealogists carrying the Pedigree of Fergus the Son of Erk, so much farther back, some afterwards either imagined themselves or would have others think, that all those mentioned before him were Kings in Scotland, as Fergus was; which by degrees was improved into a formal Story of forty Kings. And I am very much confirmed in this conjecture, because I find in the Genealogy in Fordon, the descent of Fergus, the Son of Erk from Conar the Irish Monarch, as it is in the Irish Genealogies, and that by Rieda, called by them Carbre Riada, by the other Eochoid Ried, and several other Names are the very same we now find in the Genealogy of the Irish Kings; as Eochoid, Father to Erc, Aengus, Fedlim, Conar, the Son of Ederskeol, and so up to Fergus, called in the Irish Catalogue of Kings Fergusius Fortamalius, (whom the Authour of the Synchronism makes contemporary with Ptolemy Philometor. Ogyg. p. 114.) From whence I conclude, that the original mistake lay in applying the Irish Genealogy to the Kings of Scotland.

But if we go beyond these Genealogies in Ireland, and come to examine the matters of Fact relating to their remote Antiquities, we shall find no more certainty there, than we have done in Scotland. And it is ingenuously confessed by Tigernacus in his Annals, Ogyg. p. 258.that all their Antiquities to the Reign of Kimbaithus, their 73. King, are very uncertain; but he might have gone farther, and done no injury to Truth. However we cannot but acknowledge it to be a great piece of Ingenuity to own so much in those times when fabulous Antiquities were so much cried up and believed. But what becomes then of Caesarea, Baronna and Balba, with fifty other Women and but three Men coming from Ireland just forty days before the Floud; Ogyg. Domest. Part 3. c. 1, 2.and the fifteenth day of the Moon? What becomes of Partholanus and his Company, who arrived in Ireland the 312th year after the Floud, in the Month of May, 14. of the Moon, and upon Wednesday? Is not this wonderfull exactness at such a distance of time? And the late Antiquary confesses he doth not know, how they came to understand the day of the Week and the Month so well. How come they to p. xlviiunderstand,c. 6. that the second Colony under Nemethus came to Ireland, when it had been 30 years desolate; and after the destruction of that Colony that it remained so 200 years? c. 7.As to the Milesian Colony from Spain, I discourse at large afterwards of it, and the Authority of those Annals these Antiquities depend upon.

But then as to later times, since Christianity was among them, and some kind of Learning did flourish in Ireland for some time, there is greater reason to have a regard to the Testimony of their most ancient Annals. Such are those of Tigernacus, who died A. D. 1088. and the Synchronisms of Flannus, who died A. D. 1056. the Historical Poems of Coemannus, who is celebrated as their chief Antiquary, and he deduces his Historical Poem of the Kings of Ireland to A. D. 1072. which is supposed to be the time he lived in; Modudius continues the History of their Kings from A. D. 428. to A. D. 1022. and he lived A. D. 1143. But besides these,Ogyg. p. 466. the Irish Antiquaries have found an Irish Poem of the Kings of Scotland, in the time of Malcolm Canmoir, with their Names and the time of their Reigns. Which Poem begins with Loarn, and Fergus the Son of Erc as the first Kings of Scotland, but takes notice of Kings among the Picts before; without the least intimation of any among the Scots; which being join'd with the Testimony of their Genealogies and the Annals of Tigernacus, and of Jocelin in the Acts of St. Patrick, they conclude sufficient to prove that there was no Monarchy in Scotland, till the time of this Fergus of the Dalredian Family. And it is not improbable that Bede should understand this Colony under the Conduct of these Brethren, by his Duce Reuda; because they being equal, the Denomination was taken from the Head of the Stock; who was Rieda or Reuda; and Daal the Irish Antiquaries say, originally signifies a Stock and onelyonly by consequence a Share or Portion.

But the Advocate still insists upon it, that in their chief Monasteries they had ancient Annals kept; which must be of greater Authority than these Irish Historical Poems. This is a matter of Fact, and there can be no Argument drawn from the bare probability that there were such Annals; but when they are produced and compared with the Irish Annals of Tigernacus the Annals of Ulster, Ynisfallin, p. xlviiiDungall and others which the Irish Antiquaries quote so often, besides their Historical Poems, we shall then be able to judge better between them in point of Antiquity and Credibility. At present it doth not seem so probable, that they have any such that are considerable, since they have not been alledged by so learned an Advocate for their Antiquities, who would not omit so material an evidence for his Cause. And there is a passage in the Conclusion of the Continuation of Fordon which makes it more than probable, they had no ancient authentick Annals in the Monasteries. For there it is said,Scotich. l. 16. c. 39. That in other Countries, and as he heard in England, in all their Monasteries of Royal Foundation, there was a certain Person appointed to write the passages of the present times, and after the King's death, at the next great Council all these Writers were to meet and to bring in their Papers, which were to be compared and examined by skilfull Men appointed for that purpose, and out of all one Authentick Chronicle was to be made, which was to be laid up in the Archives of the Monasteries as such, from whence the Truth might be known: The like he wishes were done in Scotland. From whence it follows, that there were no Authentick Annals in their Monasteries before that time to his knowledge. Buchanan, Buchan. p. 392.45.1.50.2.I know, doth several times quote the Book of Paslay, but it had been far better to have printed the Book it self, since Dempster saith it was in the hands of the Earl of Dumferlin,Dempst. Hist. Scot. l. 15. n. 1011. that others might have been better able to judge concerning it.Scotich. l. 8. c. 13. But Fordon tells us, that Monastery was founded A. D. 1168. (or a year after, saith the Chronicle of Melros) now, the very foundation of the Monastery is here so late, that no great matter can be expected as to remote Antiquities.l. 5. c. 36. That at Scone, as Fordon saith, was founded not much sooner, A. D. 1107. As to Abercorn, though mentioned by Bede, yet Buchanan saith no one could find out so much as the footsteps of it; Buch. l. 5. p. 40.2.and so we are not like to expect much light from thence. It is very strange that Buchanan onelyonly should see the famous Book of Pluscardin: For Books do not easily grow famous by one Man's seeing them. But no great matter of Antiquity is to be expected from thence, since that Monastery at the soonest was founded by Alexander II. in the thirteenth Century;Apparat. ad Hist. Scot. l. 1. p. 78. but Dempster rather thinks, it p. xlixwas 200 years after. I never heard that Aidan, Finan and Colman left any Annals at Lindesfern; nor Columba or his Successours at Icolmkill. If any such be ever found, it will be a great favour to inquisitive Men to oblige the World by publishing them, that if we are guilty of mistakes, we may rectifie them upon such great Authorities when they vouchsafe to let them see the light.

As to the Chronicle of Melrosse, lately published at Oxford, we find no advantage at all to the Advocate's Cause by it.p. 24. But here is an odd kind of Reflexion either on the MS. or the worthy Publisher of it, as though it were very unfaithfull in the things relating to the Scotish Nation. Whereas I have frequently perused the Original MS. in the Cotton Library, which is a very fair and ancient one. And those Verses he speaks of, which are omitted, are not there in the same hand, but added in the Margin by another, and seem transcribed from some other Book; such Verses being frequent in Fordon, and it may be are the greatest Monuments of Antiquity they have, being agreeable to the Irish Historical Poems. But seeing the first produced by the Advocate go no farther back than Alpin the Father of Kenneth who subdued the Picts, they can afford very little light in these matters. And it had been but a reasonable piece of justice in the Advocate, before he had charged such unfaithfulness upon the MS. Copy of Mailros, as it appears in the Oxford Edition, to have looked either on the Beginning or the End of the Book; and then he might have spared his Censure. For in the Preface an account is given of the Verses relating to the Succession of the Kings of Scotland: And in the end the very Verses themselves are printed, and more at large than he quotes them.

From the Annals of their Monasteries I proceed to their Historians; and the first mentioned by the Advocate,p. 25. is Veremundus a Spaniard, Archdeacon of St. Andrews, A. D. 1076. who dedicated his History to Malcolm Canmoir;p. 16. and in his Epistle appeals to the Druids and Monks and the Monuments of Antiquity kept by them in the Isles of Man and Icolmkill. This is an Evidence to the purpose, and speaks home to the point. But the Bishop of St. Asaph hath unhappily questioned, whether there ever were such a Writer; and I do not think p. lthe Advocate hath cleared the point. There may be two things in dispute, with respect to this Veremundus; first, whether there ever were such a History appearing under the name of Veremundus: And then supposing there were, whether it were genuine, or made under his Name by Hector Boethius, or rather by his Physician of Aberdeen, who was so helpfull to him, saith Dempster, in texenda Historia, i. e. in weaving the Materials for his History? I will not dispute so much the former, and the Testimony of Chambers,p. 26. a Lord of Session and learned Man, as the Advocate tells us, who wrote A. D. 1572. goes no farther, nor any other produced by him. But as to the second point I am very much unsatisfied, for these Reasons.

(1.) It is very well known that it was no unusual thing in that Age to publish Books under the Names of ancient Authours, which cost the Criticks a great deal of Pains to discover the Imposture, as is apparent in the Berosus, Manetho, Metasthenes (or Megasthenes) Philo, Cato, Xenophon, Archilochus, Sempronius, published by Annius, who lived in the fifteenth Century, and was buried during the Popedom of Alexander VI. And not onelyonly Authours, but other Monuments of Antiquity were then counterfeited, as appears by many in Gruter's Collection of Inscriptions, by those of Annius in Italy; and by the Tuscan Inscriptions published by Inghiramius under the Name of Prosper Fesulanus; which were the Invention of Thomas Foedrus, who lived at the same time with Hector Boethius. For, in that Age Men began to be inquisitive into Matters of Antiquity; and therefore some who had more Learning and better Inventions than others set themselves to Work, to gratifie the Curiosity of such who longed to see something of the Antiquities of their own Countrey. And such things were so greedily swallowed by less judicious Persons, that it proved no easie matter to convince such of the imposture. For even Annius and Prosper Fesulanus, as well as Veremundus have had their Advocates to plead for them.

(2.) We find as to the Scotish Antiquities many such Authours pretended to, who never wrote concerning them. As for instance, three Books of the History of Scotland by St. Adam Bishop of Cathnes.Dempster. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. n. 2.Sir 50:1 Auminus of the Right of the Culdees. n. 45. n. 52.King Achaius his History of his Predecessour. p. liAldarus his History of Scotland and Ireland. n. 92.n. 259.St. Convallanus his History of the Kings of Scotland. The Chronicle of Dumfermlin. n. 415. n. 490. n. 530.Elvanus Avalonius his History of Scotland. St. Fastidius his Chronicle of Scotland. n. 532.Fergus the great his Epistles to the Scots. n. 547.Fulgentius his Epistle to Donald King of Scotland in the time of Severus. n. 561.St. Glacianus his History of Scotland. St. Glodianus his Chronicle of the Picts, n. 567.cited by Veremundus, saith Dempster. n. 592.Galdus his Epistles to the Britains. Hunibertus his Scotish Chronicle.n. 667. Kenneth's Epitome of his Laws.n. 761. n. 839. n. 849. St. Machorius of the Destruction of the Picts. St. Minnanus of the Vnion of the Scots and Picts. n. 881.Marcerius of the coming of the Scots into Albion: He is said to be their first Authour, and out of him Veremundus, saith Dempster, took the Foundation of his History; but I do not find that any Man besides ever saw him.n. 1065. King Reuther's Scotish History.n. 2057. Salifax Bardus his Genealogy of their Kings in King Reuther's time. Here we have no less than 20 Authours relating to their Antiquities, every one mentioned as genuine by Dempster; and yet as far as we can find, not one of the whole number was so. Is it then any wonder, that Veremundus should be reckon'd among the rest?

(3.) No such Authour was known to Fordon, as far as appears by his History; and he is very punctual in quoting the Authours he makes use of, and sometimes transcribes large passages out of them; as out of Baldredus, as he calls him, and Turgot's Life of Malcolm, &c. Jocelin de Furnes, Vincentius, Adamnanus, and any old Legends or Chronicles he could meet with, as Chronica de Abernethy, & variae Chronicae upon many occasions. I do not therefore deny that Fordon doth appeal to Chronicles before him; but I think the Argument so much stronger against Veremundus; when one who gathered all he could meet with never once takes notice of him, as far as I can find.

(4.) William Elphinston, (Chancellour of Scotland, Hist. Scot. l. 11. f. 254.Bishop of Aberdeen, and Founder of the Vniversity there, a Man highly commended by Hector Boethius) did, as Hector himself tells us in his Epistle to James V. search all Scotland for Monuments of Antiquity, and gave the first intimation of Veremundus in the Island Iona, p. liiand followed him exactly in writing his History. l. 7. f. 118.2.Now as it happily falls out, this very History of Elphinstoun is in being among us, and I have at this time by me eight Books of it, which go as far as the thirteenth Century. He tells the Story of Gathelus and Scota, l. 1. c. 8.as others had done before him; or rather, just as Fordon had set it down. For there is very little variation from him in all the first Book, onelyonly the eighth Chapter in Fordon is very much contracted; the fifteenth about Gathelus his building the City Brigantia in Spain is transposed, another Chapter being set before it. In the seventeenth he follows Fordon exactly about the Posterity of Gathelus coming into Ireland; and whereas Fordon onelyonly quotes Grossum Caput for saying that Scotia had its Name from Scota, the most noble Person in that Colony; he saith it was in some Chronica; but what Chronica was ever written by Grosthead, Scotichron. l. 1. c. 14.deserves to be enquired. For it is certain Fordon quotes him in other Places about Scota and the Scots. Which makes me wonder that Dempster doth not put him among his Scotish Writers; but as far as I can perceive, he never read Fordon; nor saw Elphinston. In Chap. 20. where Fordon quotes an old Chronicle which affirms that Gaithelus gave the same Laws to his People which Phoroneus did to the Greeks; and that the Scots to this day glory that they have those Laws: this last Clause Elphinstoun left out; and he passes over Chap. 21. where the miserable condition of the Posterity of Gathelus in Spain for 240 years is set down. In some following Chapters he confutes Geoffrey of Monmouth in the very words of Fordon, and uses his very expressions about the first peopling of Scotland from Ireland, the coming of the Picts, and the hard usage of the Scots by them, and Fergus his going over out of Ireland; in all which not one Authority is cited which is not in Fordon, and not the least intimation of any such Authour as Veremundus.

In the second Book he follows Fordon, not onelyonly in other things before, but when he describes the Islands of Scotland, and particularly Jona; onelyonly he leaves out Fordon's Hebrew Etymology, making Iona and Columba the same; Scotichron. l. 2. c. 10.and he saith not one word of any Library or Records kept there, or any old Histories and Annals to be there found, as Hector Boethius affirms; all that he saith p. liiiis, that there was a Sanctuary for Transgressours. About Fergus and Rether he varies not a tittle from Fordon, and never mentions any other Kings of that Race; which he would never have omitted if he had known such an Authour as Veremundus. And he doth not suppose that Rether succeeded Fergus in the Kingdom of Scotland, but that he came afresh from Ireland; and so makes this the second coming of the Scots out of Ireland: Which plainly overthrows the constant Succession of the Monarchy from Fergus in Scotland: And he names no one King of Scotland from Rether to Eugenius, who was banished with all the Scots.

In the beginning of the third Book he gives an account after Fordon of Fergus the Son of Erk coming into Scotland, and he reckons 45 Kings between the two Fergusses, just as Fordon doth; and he desires to be excused, as he did, for not setting down distinctly the times of their several Reigns, because he could not then find any Writings about them; his words are ad praesens non in Scriptis reperimus. Now from this expression I thus argue against Hector Boethius his Veremundus: He saith, that Elphinstoun gave the first intimation of him, and that followed him in his History; either therefore Veremundus gave no account of this first Succession, which Hector pretends to have from him; and so his Authority signifies nothing at all in this matter; or Elphinston never saw him; for he saith, he never could find any History of this first Succession. And therefore if ever there were such a Book under the Name of Veremundus, it was after Elphinston's days. For having searched the whole Nation for ancient Writings, and particularly Jona, as Hector testifies, and finding no History of the Succession from Fergus, as himself declares, it is a plain Evidence, that Hector Boethius hath given a false account of Elphinston in relation to Veremundus, and in all probability of Veremundus too. But this is not all, for Elphinston doth not onelyonly say, that he could not find any Books relating to the Succession of the Kings from Fergus, but he refers his Readers to the old Irish Annals; his Words are, ad antiquos Hiberniae Libros referimus. So that according to Elphinston's judgment the most certain account of their Antiquities is to be taken p. livfrom the Irish Authours. And so we may observe both in him and Fordon, the Irish Legends of S. Brendan and others, served them for very good Authorities.

And so much for the Advocate's ancient Historian Veremundus the Spaniard. For I suppose the mention of him by Bale, Gesner, Hollinshed, &c. after he was so much celebrated by Hector Boethius, f. 12.deserves no farther consideration.Vo…s. de Hist. Lat. l. 3. c. 13. But Vossius did not think him worth mentioning; and although he blames Luddus (as the Advocate calls him) or Humphry Lhuyd, for being too severe upon Hector Boethius, yet it is evident that he looked on him as a fabulous Writer, and so durst not set him down on his authority.p. 31. The Advocate would excuse this Censure of Vossius, as though it related onelyonly to his credulity in point of miracles, whereas there is not the least intimation that way; and Vossius saith that Leland on the account of his fabulousness wrote sharp Verses upon him. What! for his having believed too many Miracles? No certainly, but for his fabulous Antiquities. But he hopes to bring Hector Boethius better off from the Censure of Bishop Gavin Dowglas, which the Bishop of St. Asaph takes notice of from Polydore Virgil, p. 30.because Bishop Dowglas died A. D. 1520. and Boethius his History was not published till 1526. and he had not his Records from Icolmkill till 1525. To which I answer, that this looks like one of the Miracles the Advocate confesses that Hector did too easily report. For if he had the Records on which this History was built but in 1525. how came his History to be published the following year? For he makes use of Veremundus his Authority in the very beginning of his History,Hect. Boeth. Scot. Hist. l. 1. f. 12. for the Scotish Antiquities both in Spain, Ireland and Albany. In his second Book he saith,l. 2. f. 22.2. whatever he had written of the ancient Kings of Scotland, he had taken out of Veremundus, Campbell and Cornelius Hibernicus; all which he pretended to have had from Icolmkill. l. 3. f. 35.In his third Book about Caesar's Expedition, he still pretends to follow Veremundus. And in his seventh Book he declares he had kept close to him in the whole series of his History. l. 7. f. 118.2.Now how was this possible if he had never seen Veremundus till A. D. 1525. and his History was published by Badius Ascensius at Paris, A. D. 1526. It would take up that year in sending p. lvit thither, and revising and correcting and publishing so large a Volume as his History makes. So that there must be some great mistake, as to the year of his receiving those Records, if he ever did. But if this were not the History Bishop Dowglas censured, what other was there at that time which could deserve it? It could not be Joh. Major, for his Book was printed by Badius Ascensius after Dowglas his death: (if he died, as he saith, A. D. 1520.) and he pretends to no new Discoveries, as Boethius doth. But why should the Advocate imagine his History was not known by the learned Men at home,Leslae. l. 9. p. 3…8. Dempster. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. n. 405.Sir 50:4 such as Bishop Dowglas was, before it was printed?

But to return to Vossius, who is not sparing in mentioning any of our MSS. Historians which he found well attested: and particularly Aelredus, Abbat of Rhieval, who wrote the Life of David King of Scots. p. 22.But the Advocate tells us some news concerning him, viz. that he was Abbat of Mailros, which was called Ryval before King David's time. But Fordon expresly distinguisheth the two Monasteries of Rieval and Melros; the one, Scotich. l. 5. c. 43.he saith, was founded by King David, A. D. 1132. and the latter four years after. And in the Chronicle of Melros it appears that Richard was the first Abbat there; to whom Waltheof succeeded, Vncle to King Malcolm, A. D. 1148. (who succeeded King David A. D. 1153.) After Waltheof William was Abbat of Mailros, A. D. 1159. after him Jocelin, A. D. 1170. In the mean time Aelredus dies Abbat of Rieval, A. D. 1167. and Silvanus was chosen in his place. From whence it is plain that the Abbies of Melros and Rieval were always distinct from their first foundation, and that Alredus was never Abbat of Melros. This Aelredus may be called a Scotish Historian, for his Lamentation of King David extant both in Fordon and Elphinston; but I can find nothing of his writing relating to the Scotish Antiquities. I know he wrote a Chronicon, which Boston of Bury (who calls him Adelredus) saith was deduced from Adam to Henry I. but if there had been any thing in it to their purpose, those Authours who cite a great deal out of it, relating to our Saxon Kings, would never have omitted what had been much more material to their History.

p. lviTurgott is likewise mentioned by Vossius, though a MS. Historian; Voss. de Hist. Lat. l. 2. c. 48.because he saw very good evidence for his writing some part of the Scotish History. He lived saith the Advocate A. D. 1098. I grant that he is frequently cited by Fordon and Elphinston, for the Acts of Malcolm and Margaret which he wrote; but I can find no more out of him than out of Aelred as to their remote Antiquities; although they seem to have left out very little of what Turgott wrote. But I wonder how the Advocate came to discover Turgott to have been Arcshbishop of St. Andrews;p. 35. when Dempster could have informed him that there was no Archbishop of St. Andrews till 300 years after. Dempst. Hist. Eccles. l. 18. n. 1143.Sir 50:18And he might have found in Fordon, that there was no Archbishop of St. Andrews till after James Kennedy, Scotich. l. 6. c. 48.who was Bishop of St. Andrews, A. D. 1440. and was Nephew to James I. but after his death Patrick Graham first obtained the Metropolitan Right to the See of St. Andrews, but it was not quietly enjoyed till his Successour Will. Sheues came into possession of his place.Leslae. l. 8. p. 304, 306. Dempst. Appar. l. 1. p. 63. Scotichron. l. 6. c. 24.

But there is in Fordon an account of the Succession of the Bishops of St. Andrews from the time of the expulsion of the Picts; which is wholly left out in Elphinston; and there Turgott is said to be consecrated Bishop A. D. 1109. and to continue there seven years. St. Andrews was before called Kilremont, as appears by Fordon, who calls them the Bishops of St. Andrews de Kilremont; Kil, as appears by the Scotish Historians, was a place of Devotion; Kilruil was the Church of Regulus (as Hector saith St. Andrews was called in the time of the Picts) and Kilremont, as being the Royal Seat and the principal Church, for Remont is Mons Regis; and from hence the Clergy of this Church were called Killedees (from which title the fiction of the ancient Culdees came, as the Bishop of St. Asaph hath truly observed.Scotich. l. 6. c. 42.) These Killedees had the ancient Right of chusing the Bishop, and were first excluded, as Fordon saith by William Wishart, A. D. 1273. and next by William Fraser, c. 4….after him by William Lamberton; upon which William Cumyng Keldeorum Praepositus, i. e. Dean of the Church appealed to Rome, but was overruled there. But the learned Primate of Armagh following Dempster too much,V…ler. P…imord. p. …59. calls him Auminus; and yet Dempster quotes the Scotichronicon p. lviifor it, where it is plainly William Cumyng. But that the Killdees were nothing but the Dean and Chapter of St. Andrews, not onelyonly appears by their Right of Election of the Bishop, but by the exercise of the jurisdiction in the vacancy of the See, which Fordon saith was in them.

I should not so much have insisted on this mistake of the Advocate in making Turgott Archbishop of St. Andrews if he had not so severely reflected on the Bishop of St. Asaph for making Fordon a Monk, p. 34.as though he did it merely for his own conveniency to shew him interested for the independency of Monks and Caldees from the Bishops. I grant it was a mistake but not designed, and a very pardonable one, since Dempster saith some thought him a Monk, Dempst. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. n. 543.Sir 50:6and he could not find of what condition he was; and yet he saith he read him; and Vossius makes Joh. de Fordon a Monk in King John's time,Voss. de Hist. Lat. l. 2. c. 56. Authour of the Scotichronicon.

This Book of Fordon the Advocate saith was so esteemed that there were Copies of it in most of their Monasteries; p. 34.and he saith did agree with their ancient Annals; which I think will appear by the precedent Discourse, not to be much to the advantage of his Cause.

And so much for the Authority of their Annals and Historians, from the Original Druids and Bards to Fordon and Elphinston.

Having thus gone through the most material points, which I have not distinctly answered in the following Book, there remain onelyonly some few things, which stand in need of being farther cleared. As,

(1.) The Testimony of Eumenius in his Panegyrick to Constantius, from whence the Advocate proves that in the time of Caesar there was another Nation besides the Picts who then inhabited Britain,p. 68. and were a Colony of the Irish; and these must certainly have been Scots. The question is not, whether there were not, according to Eumenius, Picts and Irish which the Britains fought with in Caesa… 's time (just as Sidonius Apollinaris saith that Caesar conquer'd the Picts and Saxons in Britain,Carm. 7. v. …0. which is such another Prolepsis as Sirmondus observes, who makes the coming of the Scots into Britain after the Saxons; and he was a judicious p. lviiiCritick and Antiquary) but the true question is, whether Eumenius affirms that those Irish then dwelt in Britain? Yes, saith Buchanan, Buch. Rer. Scot. l. 2.soli Britanni, are to be understood in the Genitive Case, and so these words relate to the Picts and Irish of the British Soil. No, saith the Bishop of St. Asaph, they are to be understood in the Nominative Case; and so they set forth the advantage in Constantius his Victory over a Roman Legion above that of Julius Caesar, who fought onelyonly with the Britains, a rude People and accustomed to no other Enemies but Picts and Irish, a half naked People. The words are thus printed in the late Paris Edition, after the comparing of several MSS. by Claudius Puteanus, and therefore more correct than the Plantin Edition. Ad hoc Natio etiam tunc rudis, & soli Britanni Pictis modo & Hibernis assueta hostibus, adhuc feminudis, facile Romanis armis signís que cesserunt.

The design of the Oratour, was to lessen the Reputation of Caesar's Victory in comparison of that of Constantius; and to that purpose it was very material to shew, that he fought with the Britains alone, who were themselves a rude People, and had no other Enemies but such as were as rude as themselves, the Picts and Irish. Now to what great purpose was it for him to say that the Britains fought with the Irish of the British Soil? Were they so much better disciplined and so much more famous among the Romans for deeds of Arms than the original Irish, that such an Emphasis must be laid upon that? But the Advocate saith the comparison lies in this,p. 72. that then they had been used onelyonly to the Picts and Irish, but Constantius overcame them when they had been long trained up in War. But if he had been pleased to have read the next Paragraph he would have found the Oratour taking no notice of the Britains greater experience in War, but of a Roman Legion corrupted, foreign Souldiers and Gallican Merchants drawn out of the Provinces to strengthen Carausius and Allectus in their Rebellion; so that the Comparison lies▪ between the Britains alone in Caesar's time, and the strength of a well disciplined Roman Army in the time of Constantius. And it is to be observed, that according to Eumenius his own manner of speaking, if he were to be, understood in p. lixBuchanan's sense, it should have been Soli Britannici for the British Soil. For so he hath Victoria Britannica at the end of the same Oration; and in another Britannica Trophaea. So that neither Sense nor Grammar do favour Buchanan's Construction.p. 70. But he saith Ioseph Scaliger approves Buchanan's Construction in his Notes on Tibullus. I have searched the place and can find no such thing; but I am afraid he mistook his own Notes; for there Scaliger speaks about the Scoto-Brigantes, and which is more, he saith, the Scots were yet in Ireland. And because he is so accustomed to Maxims of Law, I shall put him in mind of one; that a Witness which a Man brings for himself, he is bound to receive against himself.

(2.) As to Claudian's Expression, Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne. he saith this is not to be understood of Ireland,p. 85. but of a Countrey of Scotland of that Name, near to which the Romans had a Camp, the remainders whereof are still discernible; and in which there are Stones found with Roman Inscriptions designing the stations of the Legions; and Strathern in Scotland is more subject to long Frosts than Ireland is.

This I confess is ingeniously observed. But I do not understand what the Roman Inscriptions prove as to the Scots being in those parts of Britain; if the question were about the Romans they would be of some use. I do not deny that Strathern had its Name from the River Ern, and the Countrey might in Latin be called Ierne from thence. But how doth it appear that Claudian or the Romans knew it by that Name? We are certain that Ierne commonly passed for Ireland among them; and that it was then accounted the Countrey of the Scots; as appears by the express Testimony of Orosius, Oros. Hist. l. 1. c. 2.who lived in that Age. And Dempster, Dempst. Appari l. 1. c. 3.who fixes the Scots in Britain long before, yet is so convinced by these words of Claudian that they were in Ireland, that he supposes them driven thither by Theodosius, and there destroyed by him. And Claudian explains himself elsewhere, when he saith,

p. lxDe laud. Stilich. l. 2. v. 251.—Totam cum Scotus Iernen

Movit, & infesto spumavit remige Tethys.

Where it seems ridiculous to say, that the Scots put all Strathern into commotion; and this Ierne had the Sea lying between it and Britain, in whose Name Claudian speaks; and Buchanan understands this of Ireland.Buch. l. 2. p. 16.

p. 101, 103.(3.) He urges the great improbability that the Scots should manage so long a War, for 600 years, and not settle in Britain. But this is that which is called begging the Question; for the dispute is how long the Scots in Britain did make War upon the Britains? Claudian saith in his time, the Scots came from Ierne, and made the Sea foam with their Oars; Gildas saith the Irish usually returned home, Gild. Epist.intending to come back, and the Picts then rested for a time in the farthermost parts of the Isle. Why should not Gildas have said that the Irish and Picts went back to the remote parts of the Island, if they both inhabited there at that time?

If Gildas his Authority be allowed in this case, I think it is clear enough to decide the Controversie.Gild. Epist. p. 13. Ed. Iossel. For, (1.) Upon Maximus his withdrawing the Roman Legions and British Infantry which never returned, he saith the Britains were then first infested with two cruel transmarine Nations, the Scots from the Southwest, and the Picts from the North. If there had been a War of 600 years from before Julius Caesar's time, as the Advocate saith, how comes Gildas to be so extremely mistaken as to say the first War began after Maximus his withdrawing the Roman Militia? p. 14.(2.) He still speaks of their coming by Sea, and carrying away their anniversary Prey beyond the Seas; and trans Maria fugaverunt, saith he, of the Roman Forces driving them back. How comes Gildas still to mention the Seas if they then inhabited the same Island?

p. 102, 103.But the Advocate saith that by Seas the Friths are understood; and that in their old Laws the Frith of Forth is called Mare Scotiae, the Sea of Scotland; and the Frith of Dumbritton is called one part of the Mare Scoticum by the English Authours; and this passage to and fro he makes to be easie, but the other home to p. lxiIreland almost impossible with their Boats in the Irish Seas; from whence he saith, that the Bishop of St. Asaph's Hypothesis is absurd and incredible, but his very consistent.

To clear this we may observe, (1.) That to make these Friths to be called Seas not improperly, he saith,p. 103. they are 40 Miles broad in some places; and so makes the passage more difficult over them than from Ireland to Scotland; for, as Camden observes,Camd. Brit. p. 706. there is hardly 13 Miles distance between some part of Scotland and Ireland. But this is to demonstrate the consistency of his own Hypothesis, and the absurdity of the Bishop's. (2.) The Irish Writers say,Ogyg. part. 3. c. 34. p. 254. their Curroghs or light Boats cover'd with Leather were very convenient for transporting an Army, though not so proper for a Sea-fight. Adamnanus in the Life of St. Columba describes one of them in which St. Cormac went to Sea,Adamn. Vit. Columb. l. 2. apud Canis. To. 5. Antiq. Lection. with all the Parts of a Ship, and with Sails and Oars, and a Capacity for Passengers; and he saith, he was out at Sea 14 Days Northward in it. Now what absurdity or incredibility is there in it, that such Vessels should convey the Irish forwards and backwards over so narrow a passage as that between Ireland and those parts of Scotland which lay nearest to it? Why might not the Irish pass those Seas as well in these as the Britains did in Caesar's time the Sea between Gaul and Britain; for he saith they gave Assistence to the Gauls, and they had then no other kind of Ships? And Caesar himself was so far from despising them,Caesar. de Hall. Gallic. l. 3. that he thought them a very usefull invention and made use of them himself in Spain to transport his Souldiers. The Keel and Masts, he saith, were made of the lightest Wood, De Bel. Civ. l. 1.and the Bodies of them of Wicker, cover'd over with Leather; which he had learnt from the Britains. Lucan calls them little Ships, and not a miserable little kind of shapeless Boats, as the Advocate doth.p. 101.

Primum cana foelix madefacto vimine,Lucan. l. 4. parvam

Texitur in Puppim, caesó que induta juvenco, &c.

and in these he saith the Britains were wont to pass the Ocean.

p. lxii—fusó que Britannus

Navigat Oceano.—

In the old MSS. Glossaries in the Margin of Josselin's Gildas, Curuca is rendred by Navis, and not a little shapeless Boat. And Solinus expresly saith (even in the place quoted by him) that it was common to pass between Ireland and Britain with these Curroghs. Solin. c. 35.And such kind of Vessels covered with Leather were not onelyonly used by the Britains and Irish, but by the Aethiopians, Aegyptians, Sabeans, Romans, and Spaniards; as might be shewed from the Testimonies of Agatharchides, Strabo, Virgil, Pliny and others. How comes it then to be almost impossible for the Irish to pass the Seas in such Vessels? And wherein lies the Absurdity and Incredibility of the Bishop's Hypothesis, when he makes them to cross but 13 Miles from Ireland to Britain in these Curroghs, and the Advocate allows the Friths over which they were to pass to be 40 Miles broad in some places? And how could they be secure they should not be driven into the broadest places? If these Vessels then could convey them safely over the Friths, why not as well from Ireland to the nearest parts of Scotland?

But I have another Argument from Gildas that the Seas cannot be understood of the two Friths, viz. that Gildas saith,Gild. Epist. p. 13.2. when the Roman Legion first defeated the Picts and the Scots, they commanded a Wall to be built between the two Seas to hinder their Incursion: which is confirmed by Bede, Bed. l. 1. c. 12.who saith this Wall began at Penneltun not far from Abercorny and ended at Alcluith, and was designed to keep out their Enemies. Now I desire to know to what purpose this Wall was built between the two Friths to keep out the Scots and Picts, if their Custome was, as the Advocate supposes, to cross over the two Friths and to land on this side the Wall? Did the Romans and Britains so little understand the Way of their Enemies coming, to put themselves to so much pains and trouble for no purpose at all? And Buchanan thinks the last Stone Wall made by the Romans for the Security of the Britains,Buch. p. 40.2. mentioned by Gildas and Bede, Gild. p. 15. Bed. l. 1. c. 12.was made in the same place where he thinks Severus his Wall stood p. lxiiibefore. And it had been madness to erect a Stone Wall there to keep out the Scots and Picts, if they came out of Scotland over the two Friths and landed where the Wall could do the Britains no Service. But Gildas and Bede say they attempted the Wall and forced themselves a passage over it; irrumpunt terminos saith Bede; and with their Iron hooks drew the Britains from the Wall, saith Gildas. What need all this if they came over the Friths, and so left the Wall between the two Friths behind them? But from hence it is very plain, that Gildas knew nothing of their passing the Friths and therefore must be understood of their crossing the Seas from Ireland to Scotland, and there joining with the Picts, and so marching towards the Wall between the two Friths in order to their passing into the Roman Province. And it is observable that Gildas saith after the making the second Wall, the Scots and Picts upon the Romans withdrawing grew more confident and took possession of the Northern part of the Island as far as the Wall, pro indigenis, in the Place of the Natives; which shews that he looked on them as late comers, and then newly entred into possession there.

The last thing I shall take notice of is concerning the early Conversion of the Scotish Nation to the Christian Faith. And here I am particularly concerned to answer his Arguments,Ch. 2. p. 52, 53. since in the following Book I have rejected the Tradition of the Scots conversion under King Donald, and assert Palladius to have been sent to the original Scots in Ireland.p. 112. But the Advocate thinks it so clear that they were converted before A. D. 503. that from thence he concludes that they were settled in Scotland before that time. And it were a piece of very ill Nature to deny this Conclusion, if the Premisses be well proved.

(1.) As to the Conversion under King Donald; he shews,

1. That it is very probable the British Christians being persecuted by the Roman Emperours in the Southern parts, p. 113.would go into the Northern and propagate their Religion there. But this proves onelyonly the probability of the Conversion of the Northern Britains and not of the Scots.

p. lxivp. 114.2. He saith, the Druids were prepared to receive Christianity, and so would be easie to be converted themselves and ready to convert the People. He speaks soon after of a double Conversion of their Nation from Paganism and Pelagianism. p. 117.Methinks these words do not argue the latter Conversion to have been such, as to have left no Dregs behind it. For how came the Druids natural improvements to facilitate their Conversion more than the Philosophers at Athens or Rome? And the Irish Antiquaries say the Druids there were the great opposers of the Gospel. Ogyg. p. 203.But still these Druids might be among the Britains and not the Scots.

p. 118.3. He saith, That Donald was their first Christian King, A. D. 203. seems most fully proved. Not by any thing yet said. But what then is the full Proof? In short it is this. It was a matter of Fact. Very true; Matters of Fact must be proved by Witnesses. True again. But who are these Witnesses? Even the Historians of their Countrey, and the Annals of their Monasteries. And so we are thrown back upon the debate of their Authority, which I have gone through already. Let it therefore rest upon their Credibility; onelyonly remembring that no such King as Donald doth appear in their most ancient Genealogies.

p. 115.4. He affirms, That Baronius allows their Conversion by Pope Victor, and he made Ecclesiastick History more his Task than the Bishop of St. Asaph, and was more disinterested. It is possible, the Bishop of St. Asaph may have considered Ecclesiastick History with as much Care as Baronius himself; but I dare say, with greater judgment and impartiality. And of all things I cannot but wonder at the Advocate's looking on Baronius as more disinterested, when the Conversion from a Pope was in question. Which shews him to be such a stranger to Baronius, that one would think he had never looked into him. For Dempster is displeased with Baronius, Dempst. Appar. l. 1. c. 6.as one injurious to their Nation, as to this first Conversion, saying that there were no Christians in Scotland before Palladius but such as fled thither out of this part of Britain because of persecution. And Baronius doth wonder that such a Conversion should be omitted not onelyonly by Bede but by Marianus Scotus.Bar. A. D. 429. n. 2.

p. lxv5. The Magdeburgian Centuries, he saith,p. 117. agree with Baronius; and these are the Standards of Ecclesiastick History to the Professours of both Religions. He had as good have said they were the Hercules Pillars and there is no passage beyond them. But no learned Professours of either Religion allow these to be Standards. How many Errours in Baronius have been discovered by the learned Antiquaries of his own Communion? What Complaints have been made of his partiality to the Court of Rome, not onelyonly by the Sorbonists but by the King's Advocates in France? And as to the Magdeburgians, we commend them for their noble attempt and great diligence and industry; but matters of Ecclesiastick Antiquity are extremely improved since that time. More ancient Authours having been published out of MSS. and better Editions by comparing the Authours before printed with MSS. and many counterfeit Authours discovered and far greater Enquiries have been made into all parts of Ecclesiastick Antiquities; so that after so many new discoveries to make these the Standards, were almost as absurd as to make Ptolemy the Standard for modern Geography. We do not disparage what he hath done, when we say many things have been found out since his time.

(2.) As to the mission of Palladius into Scotland, p. 114.the Advocate insists on these three things, 1. That Bede affirms that he was sent to the Scots in Britain. 2. That there is no probability in the Circumstances of his being sent into Ireland.p. 119. 3. That Dr. Hammond yields that the Scots were converted before Celestine's time; p. 122.and therefore it is more probable that Palladius was sent Bishop to them.

To these particulars I shall give a distinct Answer.

(1.) To Bede's Testimony, he affirms,l. 1. c. 13. that in the eighth of Theodosius the younger, Palladius was sent by Celestine the first Bishop to the Scots believing in Christ. Wherein Bede onelyonly applies Prosper's Words to the eighth of Theodosius, which he had placed under Bassus and Antiochus Consuls; but he doth not determine whether these Scots were in Ireland or in Britain. But the Advocate saith, all that which Bede saith before and after concerning the Scots relates to the Scots in Britain, and therefore these Words are so to be understood. p. lxviWhereas Bede in the very beginning declares, that Ireland was the proper Countrey of the Scots;l. 1. c. 1. and that Dumbritton Frith did anciently separate the Picts and the Britains; but the Scots coming afterwards to the Northern part of that Frith, there setled themselves. Which Words do evidently prove that Bede did not look on the Scots as ancient Inhabitants there; for then he would have said that the Frith did antiquitus gentem Britonum à Scotis secernere; but he never mentions the Scots but the Picts as the ancient Inhabitants on the Northern part of the Frith. But, saith the Advocate,p. 60. Bede's Title of his Chapter is of the ancient Inhabitants of Britain, and he mentions the Scots among them. Very true; but shall not Bede explain himself whom he means by the ancient Inhabitants, viz. the Britains and Picts? For, by the Advocate's reasoning the Saxons will be proved to have been in Britain before Julius Caesar, as well as the Scots; for they make up one of the five Nations spoken of in that first Chapter. And so Bede doth not onelyonly settle the Scots and the Picts in this Countrey, by his first Chapter, but the English too. And it is an extraordinary sagacity that can discover this Chapter in Bede, p. 65.to be clear to a Demonstration that he makes the Scots to be ancient Inhabitants in Britain; whereas to my dull apprehension Bede is clear the other Way.

p. 146.But the Advocate proceeds to shew, that the Name of Scots doth originally belong to the Scots in Britain, and onelyonly by way of communication to those in Ireland. This were indeed to the purpose if it were proved. And there ought to be the more care in doing it, since it is so new and singular an opinion. For even Buchanan saith that the Irish were at first called Scots;Buch. l. 2. p. 16. and from thence they passed into Albany;p. 18.2. and that by the Name Scots their coming from the Irish is declared. Joh. Major saith,Major. Hist. Scot. l. 1. c. 9. that Scotia among their Ancestours was the common Name for Ireland. And if their ancient Annals may be believed, the Name of Scot came from Scota the Wife of Gathelus, whose Posterity went first into Ireland, and then carried the Name into Scotland. In Fordon and Elphinston there is another Scota mentioned, as a Leader of the first Colony into Ireland, who gave the p. lxviiName to that Countrey of Scotia; and Joh. Major saith She was the Mother of Hiber. But whichsoever of these stands, unless the Advocate will at last give up the Cause of their Ancient Annals, which he hath contended so warmly for, he must renounce this opinion of his, that the Name of Scots doth originally belong to the Albian Scots, and onelyonly by way of communication to the Irish; so that there is no need to produce the plain Testimonies of Orosius, Bede and Isidore, Oros. l. 1. c. 2. Bed. l. 1. c. 1. Isidor. Orig. l. 14. c. 6.which make Ireland the proper Countrey of the Scots. But it is a wonderfull subtilty from hence to infer,p. 151. as the Advocate doth, as if it might have been justly doubted, and were not true in all senses. Doth he mean proper or improper senses? Their words are plain that Ireland in a strict and proper sense was the Countrey of the Scots, i. e. the Patria Originis, though the other might afterwards, be Patria incolatus & Domicilii; as the Advocate himself doth distinguish;p. 152. but that which follows from hence is, that if the Scots came originally from Ireland, then the Name of Scots doth not originally belong to the Scots in Britain but to those in Ireland, unless he can shew that the Reason of the Name doth agree to them onelyonly upon their removal into Britain. As; to take his own instance; no one will question that the Colony of Virginia are called English, because the Inhabitants of the Countrey from whence they came are so called. But were not the Irish called Scots before they went into Scotland? If not, that could not be propriè Scotorum Patria, as Orosius and Bede and Isidore affirm; as England could not be said to be the proper Countrey of the English unless the Inhabitants were called English; and the Colony of Virginia received its denomination of being English because they came from hence. Vnless therefore the Advocate be pleased to shew, that the Name of Scots doth so belong to the Irish upon their remove into Britain that it could not agree to them in Ireland it will be impossible for him to make out, that the Name of Scots doth originally belong to the Irish in Britain, and onelyonly by way of communication to those in Ireland. I have already shewed that Jos. Scaliger doth assign such a Reason of the Name of Scoti as agrees onelyonly to those who came over upon Expeditions; but I believe the Scots will take it far p. lxviiibetter to receive their Name from the Irish Scots, than to have had the original Name given them on such an Account.

(2.) As to the Circumstances of Palladius his Mission the main difficulty objected,p. 119. is from St. Patrick's being sent so soon after into Ireland; which needed not have been if Palladius were sent before thither and not rather into Scotland, whither Bale saith he went and died not, A. D. 431. but 434. This is the force of what the Advocate saith upon this matter. But the Bishop of St. Asaph had proved from Prosper, that Palladius was sent to the Scots in Ireland; because he distinguishes the two Islands, the one he calls Roman, i. e. Britain, the other barbarous where the Scots lived, to whom Palladius was sent; which could be no other than Ireland. To which the Advocate answers,p. 116. that the Northern part of Britain was by Tacitus and Bede said to be reduced into an Island by the Roman Wall from Sea to Sea; and Bede in other places calls the Scots Islanders. Tacitus indeed saith, that by Agricola's Fortifications between the two Friths, the Britains were driven as into another Island; but this is a very different way of speaking from that of Prosper, who makes a distinction between two proper Islands. And Prosper could not be ignorant that Festus Avienus not long before, viz. in the time of Theodosius had distinguished the two Islands, the one inhabited by the Hiberni, and the other he calls Insula Albionum, which takes in all that we now call Britain. But according to the old Geographers, Ireland was accounted one of the British Islands; as appears by the Testimonies of Pliny, Apuleius, Ptolemy, Diodorus Siculus and Marcianus Heracleota, which have been produced by others,Vsser. Primord. p. 722, &c. War. Antiq. Hib. c. 1. and need not to be repeated here. But no one ever mentioned Scotland as a distinct Island, and therefore it is unreasonable to understand Prosper in that Sense. Bede mentions the Insulani in the Chapter refer'd to;Bed. l. 1. c. 12. but nothing can be plainer, than that he speaks of the Britains on this side the Wall; who raised up the Wall of Turf between the two Friths for their own security against their Enemies beyond the Wall. In the other place of Bede, l. 4. c. 26.the Insulani are to be understood of those of Ireland, as Bede clearly expresseth himself, misso in p. lxixHiberniam exercitu. But the ingenious Advocate hath a fetch beyond this, for he saith that Bede by Ireland meant Scotland, which he sets himself to prove from this very passage. For, saith he,p. 153. the same thing that is first said to be done in Hibernia is afterwards said to be done in Scotia. And might it not be so if Ireland were then called Scotia, as appears by the former Testimonies? But that Bede could not mean any other than Ireland appears from hence, that he saith, the Nation which Egfred invaded had been always kind to the English; and the Irish Annals give an account of the very Place and Time of Egfred's landing in Ireland and the Captives he carried away from thence.Ogyg. p. 230. l. 1. c. 34.But Bede elsewhere saith the Scots in Britain had been great Enemies to them, as appeared by the Battel at Degsastan, where the whole Army of the Scots was almost cut off by Edilfredus King of Northumberland, and their King Edan fled; from which time none of the Kings of Scotland durst appear in the Field against the English. Which argues no great kindness between them; but Bede saith, that these had been Nationi Anglorum gens super amicissima; and therefore his Words must relate to the Scots in Ireland.

But doth not Bede say,p. 155. that Columbanus came from Ireland to Hy and so to Britain; and afterwards that Colman returned to Scotland, i. e. to Hy from whence Columba came; therefore Scotland was called Ireland; or rather, Ireland was called Scotia; which is so clear in Bede, that I wonder that any that carefully reade him can dispute it. He saith indeed, that the Scots had a Kingdom in Britain, but where he speaks of the Religion of the Scots he then means the Scots of Ireland; as will easily appear by the series of his Discourse. When he speaks of Laurentius his care not onelyonly of the Britains but of the Scots too,l. 2. c. 4. he explains himself to mean those who lived in Ireland, an Island near to Britain. Columba, he saith,l. 3. c. 4. came from Ireland to convert the Northern Picts, and obtained from their King the Island Hy, where he founded his Monastery,c. 3. which he saith was the chief of all the Northern Scots, not of those in Scotland but in Ireland, For in the same Chapter he distinguished the Scots in the Southern parts of Ireland, from those in the Northern; the former following p. lxxthe Roman Custome of Easter, and the Northern refusing it. From these Aidanus came, the first Scotish Bishop who setled among the English, c. 3, 5.being sent for by King Oswald. c. 19.Furseus, saith he afterwards, came from Ireland, being of the most noble Race of the Scots; and there he mentions the Scots of his own Nation, and saith he had preached a great while in Scotia before he came into England; but he never takes notice, after his coming over, of his being any where, but among the Britains before he went to the East Angles. c. 25.After Aidan's death Finan came from the same Scots, who persisted in the old way of the keeping Easter; after Finan Colman succeeded, who was missus a Scotia, who maintained the same practice; and afterwards he returned home,c. 26. in Scotiam regressus est; but what he means by it Bede presently informs us, when he saith that Tuda succeeded who had been brought up among the Southern Scots, i. e. in the Southern parts of Ireland. Tuda died of the Plague, which Bede saith passed into Ireland, c. 27.whither many English went in the time of Finan and Colman, who were all kindly received by the Scots. l. 4. c. 4.When Colman returned Bede, saith he went first to Hy, then to an Island on the West of Ireland; but not a word of the Northern parts of Britain. Afterwards he sheweth how the greatest part of the Scots in Ireland were brought to compliance in the point of keeping Easter by means of Adamnanus, l. 5. c. 16.who endeavoured to reduce those of Hy but could not; but upon Egbert's coming to them from Ireland, c. 13.the Scotish Monks of the Island Hy or Jona yielded, when Duumchadus was Abbat there. And now let any indifferent Reader judge whether by Scotia Bede understands the Northern parts of Britain or Ireland.

p. 156.But after all, doth not Bede say, that the Island Hy did belong to Britain as a part of it? And what then follows? Doth not Bede in the same place say it was given by the Picts not by the Scots to the Scotish Monks who came from Ireland? So that upon the whole matter, that which Bede understands by Scotia seems to be Ireland, although he affirms the Scots to have setled in the Northern parts of Britain, and to have set up a Kingdom there.

p. lxxiFrom whence there appears no probability of Palladius's being sent to the Scots in Britain; Bede saying nothing of their Conversion, when he so punctually sets down the Conversion of the South Picts by Ninias a British Bishop and of the Northern Picts by Columba, l. 3. c. 4.a Scotish or Irish Presbyter.

But if Palladius were sent to the Scots in Ireland, how came St. Patrick to be sent so soon after him? To this the Bishop of St. Asaph answers, that Palladius might die so soon after his Mission that Pope Celestine might have time enough to send St. Patrick before his own death. And this he makes out by laying the several circumstances of the Story together, as they are reported by Authours, which the Advocate calls a laborious Hypothesis, p. 120, 122.and elaborate contrivance to divert all the unanswerable Authorities proving that Palladius was se…t to them in Scotland, A. D. 431. What those unanswerable Authorities are, which prove Palladius sent to the Scots in Britain I cannot find. And for all that I see by this Answer, the onelyonly fault of the Bishop's Hypothesis is, that it is too exact, and doth too much clear the appearance of contradiction between the two Missions.

(3.) As to Dr. Hammond's Testimony (who is deservedly called by the Advocate a learned and Episcopal English Divine) it is very easily answered. For,p. 122. Vidication of the Dissertation about Episcopacy, p. 160, &c.1. He looks on the whole Story of the Scots Conversionfs as very uncertainly set down by Authours. 2. He saith, that Bozius applies the Conversion under Victor to Ireland then called Scotia; for which he quotes Bede. 3. That neither Marianus Scotus nor Bede do take the least notice of it. 4. That if Prosper's Words be understood of the Scots in Britain, yet they do not prove the thing designed by his Adversaries, viz. that the Churches there were governed by Presbyters without Bishops; for Prosper supposes that they remained barbarous still, and therefore the Plantation was very imperfect, and could not be understood of any formed Churches. But the Advocate very wisely conceals one passage which overthrows his Hypothesis, viz. that they could not be supposed to receive the first Rudiments of their Conversion from Rome, viz. under Pope Victor, since the Scots joined with the Britains in rejecting the Roman Customs. From whence we see that p. lxxiiDr. Hammond was far from being of the Advocate's mind in this matter; and what he proposes as to some Rudiments of Christianity in Scotland before Palladius his coming thither, was onelyonly from an uncertain Tradition, and for reconciling the seeming differences between Bede and Prosper; or rather for reconciling Prosper to himself.

p. 135.But I remember the Advocate's observation in the case of their Predecessour's Apology against Edward I. viz. that they designed, as most Pleaders do, to gain their Point at any rate; and how far this eloquent Advocate hath made good this observation through his Discourse I leave the Reader to determine.

Having thus gone through all the material parts of the Advocate's Book, I shall conclude with a serious Protestation that no Pique or Animosity led me to this Undertaking, no ill Will to the Scotish Nation, much less to the Royal Line, (which I do believe hath the Advantage in point of Antiquity above any other in Europe, and as far as we know, in the World.) But I thought it necessary for me to enquire more strictly into this Defence of such pretended Antiquities; both because I owed so much service to so worthy and excellent a Friend as the Bishop of St. Asaph, and because if the Advocate's Arguments would hold good they would overthrow several things I had asserted in the following Book; and withall I was willing to let the learned Nobility and Gentry of that Nation see how much they have been imposed upon by Hector Boethius and his followers; and that the true Honour and Wisedom of their Nation is not concerned in defending such Antiquities, which are universally disesteemed among all judicious and inquisitive Men. And it would far better become Persons of so much Ingenuity and Sagacity, to follow the Examples of other European Nations, in rejecting the Romantick Fables of the Monkish times, and at last to settle their Antiquities on firm and solid Foundations.

As to the following Book, it comes forth as a Specimen of a greater Design (if God gives me Life and Opportunity) which is to clear the most important Difficulties of Ecclesiastical History. And because I look on a General Church-History, as too heavy a Burthen to be undergone by any Man, when he is fit for it by Age and Consideration, p. lxxiiiI have therefore thought it the better way to undertake such particular Parts of it which may be most usefull, and I have now begun with these Antiquities of the British Churches; which may be followed by others as I see occasion. But I hope none will have just cause to complain that I have not used diligence or faithfulness enough in this present Work, or that I have set up Fancies and Chimaera's of my own instead of the true Antiquities of the British Churches. I have neither neglected nor transcribed those who have written before me; and if in some things I differ from them; it was not out of the Humour of opposing any great Names, but because I intended not to deliver other Mens judgements, but my own.