ALL the Historians of Scotland unanimous­ly agreeing, that the Royal-Line of the Kings of Scotland did begin in King Fergus the First: and that the Scots now inhabiting it, were settled here, un­der [Page 2] one Soveraign, about 330 years before Christ. And their Histories being receiv'd with great applause for many hundreds of years, by Hi­storians, Antiquaries, and Criticks of other Nations, who had any occasi­on to take notice of our Affairs; Luddus affecting Singularity, did, Anno 1572, controvert both these Points: for which, he having been refuted with just severity by Buchan­nan; the Bishop of St. Asaph, upon pretext of answering a very silly an inconsequential Argument against Episcopacy, has undertaken the De­fence of Luddus his Kinsman, con­tending, that the Scots did not settle in Britain till the year of our Lord 503, and that they had no King, who govern'd in this Island till that time.

Albeit there be other unwarran­table assertions and positions in that Book, yet being unwilling to enter upon any Argument, which may, by the remotest Consequence, be urg'd against that Episcopacy, which I so much reverence; I, as his Maje­sties Advocate, design only to prove, that in both these Points the Bishop [Page 3] has (though I hope without design) injur'd our Kings and Nation. For proving whereof,

The first thing I shall clear, shall be, That History requires, nor admits no Mathematieal, nor Legal Proof, but is satisfied with such Moral Certainty, as is infer'd from probable Tradition, old Manuscripts, credible Historians, the Testimony of Foreign Authors, and probable Reasons.

Secondly; That our Histories be­ing already acquiesced in, and received by the generality of Mankind, and espe­cially by Criticks, Antiquaries, and Historians, the best Iudges in such cases, need no Confirmation, nor fur­ther Proof.

Thirdly; That albeit we are not ob­liged to prove, or confirm our History, yet we are able to do it by all the former Grounds, which is all that needs be done for the Credit of any History.

Fourthly; I shall answer the Ar­guments brought by the Bishop against our Histories. And I must intreat my Readers to lay all these together, and not to judg by parcels, which is not [Page 4] to be done, especially in cases of this nature.

For clearing the first of these Points, SECT. 1. What Proofs are necessary in History. it is fit to consider, that right Reason requires only in all cases, such Proofs, as the nature of the Subject can allow: and therefore, though Mathematicians rest only up­on infallible Demonstrations; and the Law requires strict and solemn Proofs; Yet the Law it self remits its ordinary Exactness, to comply with the necessity of Human Af­fairs, allowing Domestick Witnesses, where others cannot be had, and strong presumptive Grounds as equal to Witnesses, where the Subject Mat­ter can admit of no other Proofs: Morality convinces by probable Reasons, and History allows Moral Certainty for a sufficient Probation in matters of Fact, because the mat­ters treated of in it, can general­ly admit no exacter Proofs: Which Proposition as to History, will ve­ry easily appear, if we consider, that even the Historians of this present Age, cannot themselves see every thing they relate; nor can all be [Page 5] prov'd by the Testimony of Wit­nesses. Reason likewise has oblig'd Men to presume, that a Nation ought as much to be believ'd in these cases, as two Witnesses are in any single one: for even in the case of Wit­nesses, our belief is founded upon the presumption, that they will not lie, and damn themselves; and that both the one, and the other, do at last resolve in presumptive and pro­bable Grounds: So that Men satis­fie themselves in most things, with the general Belief and Tradition of those among whom they live, foun­ded upon probable Reasons. Ma­nuscripts also written by others, in­fer no Mathematical nor Legal Cer­tainty: For the Author of the Ma­nuscript might have been mistaken, or byass'd; and at best, one Wit­ness proves not. Nor are Strangers oblig'd to believe the exactest Hi­story of those who write in favour of the Antiquity of their own Na­tion, upon any other account, than because History is satisfy'd with pro­bable Grounds. Domestick Testi­monies infer only a probable Be­lief; and tho an Oath were inter­pos'd, [Page 6] that could creat no more than a moral Certainty.

As the former Proposition is foun­ded upon just Reason, so all Histori­ans have been believ'd, and the Hi­stories of all Nations have been re­ceiv'd upon probable Grounds and Warrants, though they were not written by those who saw and heard what they wrote. Amongst many Instances of which, I shall only name that of the Romans, written by Rarae per ea­dem tempora li­terae f [...]ere una custodia fidelis memoriae rerum g [...]starum: & quod etiamsi quae in commen­tariis Pontifi­cum, aliis (que) pub­licis privatisque erant Monumen­tis, incensa urbe plera (que) periere. Liv. I [...]it. lib. 6. Livius; In which Common­wealth, he tells us that the use of Letters was not then ordinary, and that the best Records were the faith­ful Remembrance of things past; and if some few Memorials were left by the Priests in succeeding Ages, they perish'd at the burning of the Town. And no History was collected till the year 485, after the building of Rome, Fa­bius Pictor, their first Historian, wri­ting in that Year, as Vossius de Hist. Lat. lib. 1. cap. 44. & lib. 2. Vossius in­forms us. The Iewish History also had no Historical Warrant for the first 2000 years, but Tradition, and after that time, their Transactions were mention'd in very few Fo­reign Histories: And the Annals of [Page 7] their own Priests were thought good Historical Foundations, in the opi­nion of Lib. 1. a­gainst Appion. Iosephus, even for the Sa­cred History. I need not mention the Histories of the Greeks, who could have no Records for many hundreds of years before they wrote; and much less those of the French, and Spaniards, whose Histories might much more justly be questioned up­on the Grounds that ours are.

The surest Foundation then of all Histories, is the common belief and consent of the Natives: For Stran­gers cannot know but from them, and this consent and belief may be founded upon credible Tradition, Manuscripts, Domestick Witnesses, but especially when these are forti­fy'd by the concurring Testimonies of Foreign Authors, probable Rea­sons, and the acquiescence of Man­kind. And tho less accepted for fortifying an Ancient, than Modern History, and that even a part of these would be sufficient to confirm a Modern one; yet I hope to make them all concur for supporting ours, tho very ancient.

[Page 8] It would appear then by this, that as the Bishop of St. Asaph has under­taken to defame our History with­out any necessity, so he does it with­out any shadow of Reason: and we will at least have the satisfaction to see our Histories subsist as long as any Histories can do.

I conceive also, that in Reason, Historians already receiv'd in the World with Applause, need not show their Warrants whereupon they proceed; No more than a Man that is in possession needs prove or confirm his Right, except the same be prov'd to be false, or a clea­rer, or stronger Right be produced by him who challenges the former. Nor are Men curious to preserve old Manuscripts and Records, after they have form'd their Histories by them: for else no Historian could ever be secure, if the not being able to show their Warrants, after many Ages, might discredit their History. And I desire to know, where are these few Historians, whom Hero­dotus, Livius, and others do cite in their Histories? Or, these whom Iosephus did cite to confirm that of [Page 9] the Jews, when it was challeng'd by Appion the Grammarian, upon the same grounds that ours is now quar­rell'd by the Bishop of St. Asaph? And albeit the authority of a single Historian, might be suspected af­ter his History is written, and that then his Warrants might be call'd for; especially if other Manuscripts could be found, written in the time controverted, by which that Histo­ry might be contradicted: Or if the History controverted did re­port things inconsistent with the whole Tract of other Historians, or the Principles of common Sense and Reason, as Ieffrey of Monmouth, and some British Historians do, in the opinion of the Bishop of St. Asaph, and their own best Critiques. Yet, this cannot at all be extended to our case, who have many Histories written by Men of great Reputa­tion, all agreeing very well with one another, and relating things probable in themselves, and very a­greeable to Foreign Histories, and which they declare, they did draw from Warrants cited by them, and which have for many Years, been [Page 10] read with great pleasure, and cited with great honour by Critiques, An­tiquaries, and Historians, and contra­dicted by the authority of no po­sitive History or Manuscript, writ­ten by any in the Ages controver­ted, asserting, that the Scotish Na­tion now inhabiting this Isle, did first plant themselves here, about such a year of God, under such a King, or adducing some such solid Ground against us; all that is objected a­gainst our positive and applauded Histories, being the vain scruples of an obscure Author, Luddus, who be­ing confuted by Buchannan, made no more noise in the World, till Brittann. cap. Scoti pas­sim, but espe­cially Pag. 242. These are the Points, I say, which I would wish the Scotish Men diligently to think upon; but let them re­member, that in the mean time, I have affirm'd nothing, but only given an inkling of certain things, which may seem in some sort material, whence if the Original of the Scots have received no Light, let them seek it elsewhere; and I have in vain searched, but with that circumspect care, that I hope I have not given the least offence to any whatsoever. Cambden rais'd some Conjectures with submission to us, after which Learned Praefat. de primord. Eccl. Brit. In nostra autem ex omni Scriptorum genere promiscue congesta farragine, si­quis obscuriorum Authorum citata mirabitur testimonia; Cogitare illum velim, aliud esse Historiam scribere aliud materiam hinc inde conve [...]ere, un­de delectu adhibito, &c.Bishop Vsher (picqu'd by Dempster's Severity, to his Uncle [Page 11] Stanihurst) gathered together, an undigested, and formless lump of all Writers, good and bad, from which, he says, that Discretion being us'd, a History might be form'd. And from these, the Bishop of St. Asaph, impa­tient of Buchannan's severity to Lud­dus, under the pretext of respect to Episcopacy, has drawn a new Model, without bringing new Materials, put­ting that confus'd Rabble in Rank and File, with some pleasant Re­flections.

I might then forbear to trouble my self any further, SECT. 2. What Proofs we can adduce for our Histo­ry, and first of our Tradition. than in answer­ing those few, and ill-founded Ob­jections, muster'd up by the Bishop against us, which being remov'd, leave our History in its former lustre and splendor. But for serving my King and Country, and satisfying my Reader more entirely, I am re­solv'd to clear, that our Historians have proceeded upon sufficient War­rants, according to the former un­controvertible Propositions, which I at first laid down in relation to History in general. And this I will endeavour to do, 1. By shew­ing [Page 12] that our Tradition is very well founded. 2. By shewing, that we had ancient Annals, and that our Historians were Men of great Repu­tation, and that they founded their Histories on those ancient Annals. 3. That the best Historians among the Britains, do concur to assert our Antiquity; and that such as oppose it, are Men of so little authority, as that their Testimony should not be put in the Ballance with those who stand for us. 4. That our Histories are confirm'd by the authority of ancient Foreign Authors. 5. That our Histories have been believ'd and applauded by the best of late Histo­rians, Critiques, and Antiquaries, the best Judges in such cases. 6. That the antiquity of our History is foun­ded upon solid Reason, and great Probability as well as upon the Te­stimony of Authors, both within and without the Isle: Which is all that can be done, or is requisite for asserting and proving the Truth of any History.

For clearing whereof I must in­form my Reader, that whilst this Isle was Pagan, it had for its Priests, [Page 13] the Druids, who taught them Sci­ences, and Letters, and who were so famous, That Disciplina in Britannia Re­perta, at (que) inde in Galliam trans­lata esse existi­matur: Caes. Bell. Gall. Lib. 6. multa de ex eo­rum motu, de mundi ac terra­rum magnitudine de rerum natura, de Deorum im­mortalium vi & potestate dispu­tant & juventu­te tradunt. Ibid. Cum in publicis rationibus & privivatis, Grae­cis literis utan­tur. Ibid. By publicae rationes, are probably meant their Histories, at least it is most reasonable to think, that since they had the use of Let­ters, they would have written Histo­ries, or some short Memo­rials. Caesar tells us, That the Gauls deriv'd their first Learn­ing from them. And all Histories ac­knowledg, That these us'd to trans­mit the Histories of their own times in Verses, which were taught by them to their Scholars: and it is probable, that some of these Druids having been converted from the Pa­gan Religion, whereof they were the Priests, became our first Monks; being thereto much inclin'd by the severity of their former Discipline: as the Therapeutae did for the same Reason become the first Anchorits in Egypt; and so it was easie for them to inform the Monasteries of what they knew so well. And this Hint is confirm'd by a very clear passage in Leslies Preface to his Hi­story, who being a Bishop himself, should be believ'd by another of the same Character in a probable matter of Fact. Nor can there be a clear­er Confirmation of our having had the Druids amongst us, than that in several places of the Irish Version of the New Testament, the wise Men, or [Page 14] Priests, are translated Druids: and so, where the English Translation saith, That the Wise Men from the East came to worship our Saviour: Our Irish Translation has the Druids, &c. Our Predecessors also being descen­ded from the Spanish Gallicks, or Galicians, as is acknowledg'd by Hi­storians; and they having had the use of Letters, and of Grammar, long before this time, as Pag. 96. E­dit. Casaubon. Strabo confesses, it cannot be imagined, but that we as a Colony of them, would have likewise a part of their Art and Learning. Our Predeces­sors also had their Sanachies and Bards; The first whereof were the Historians, and the latter the Poets of their Traditions, as Luddus him­self acknowledges, and by either of these means, the Memory of our Kings and their Actions, might have been preserv'd until the 5th Centu­ry; at which time we got Mona­steries; in which (as I shall here­after prove) were written and pre­serv'd the Annals of our Nation. And since nothing but great Impro­babilities, and fundamental Inconsi­stencies, should be allow'd to refute [Page 15] a History already receiv'd. I shall offer these Considerations for clear­ing, that this way of preserving the Memory of our Kings, is as pro­bable a mean as any can be in Hi­story.

1. It is probable that our Nati­on, as all the rest of Mankind, who are warlike, and in constant action, would be desirous to preserve the memory of those Actions, for which they had hazarded their Lives, and by which they design'd to preserve that Fame, which they preferr'd to Life it self: And that the Kings likewise, whose Authority and Right was much reverenc'd for its Antiquity, would be as careful to preserve those Marks of their anci­ent Dominion.

2. We do not in this serious De­bate, pretend to such ancient Ori­ginations, and Descents, as might through Vanity tempt Men to lie, as those do, who endeavour to de­rive themselves from the Trojans. All that we pretend to in this De­bate, being only, that we are a Colony, who probably came first from Greece to Spain, but settled [Page 16] certainly in Ireland for some time: and that we came from them, after the time, in which Cambden, and Vsher acknowledge that the Nati­on of the Scots (whose Name we only now bear) were long settled there. Would not our Accusers have us trust the British Antiqui­ties for 2500 years? and the Irish for a longer time than our own, without any written History, or Ma­nuscript now extant before Gilda's time? And tho Lycurgus would not suffer his Laws to be written, yet they were preserv'd in the Memories of Men, for more than 600 Years, as Plutarch observes; and we and other Nations have preserv'd some Laws for much longer time, without the help of writing. And the only Points here controverted, being the first Settlement of our Nation, and that we continue Subjects to the same race of Kings; these are matters so remarkable, that most Nations know when such Changes happened to one another. As for instance, tho there were no History yet extant, we should easily have known that the Saxons, Danes, and Normans con­quer'd [Page 17] the Britons, and alter'd the Race of their Kings. That Ireland had many little Monarchs, till they were swallow'd up by Henry the 2d of England. And that Edward Bruce, Brother to our glorious King Robert the first, was chosen King of Ireland, with universal Consent there, and might have continued in that Go­vernment, if from too great a love to Fame, and to gain a Victory with­out his Brother, he had not lost it, and himself. And though all these controverted Points, fell out in a time after the use of Letters was known to most Nations, and parti­cularly to the Druids and Romans, the one whereof were our Priests, and the other our Neighbours very long, yet there remains not the least vestige of a doubt, that our Scepter was ever sway'd by any other Race.

3. Though we had wanted the use of Letters, as most probably we did not; Yet the Tradition contro­verted, is at most of about 800 years. For, after that time, it shall be pro­ved, that we had Records and An­nals: And the things said of our Kings, during that time, are so few, [Page 18] and so remarkable, that Men might have taught the same to their Chil­dren in a weeks time: And Men li­ved so long at that time, that ten or twelve Men might have transmitted the Tradition to one another. As also, since private Families do pre­serve to this day their Tradition for as long time as this; it was much more easy for a Nation, and their Kings, to preserve theirs. Nor can I tell why my Lord St. Asaph, in his Preface, can controvert our Tradi­tion, though we could not produce Writers who lived in those Times, wherein these Actions are said to be done: since Pag. 71. he thinks it reasonable to judge that there was the same Go­vernment here in Britain, though for want of Ancient Writings, there could be produced no plain Instances of it. And if this be allowed to Episcopacy in these times, why should he not have allow'd the same favour to his Monarch's Predecessors, in the same and more ancient Ages.

4. It was much easier for us to preserve our Traditions, than for the English, we being all descended from the same Race, and being still the [Page 19] same People, living under the unin­terrupted succession of the same Royal-Line; Whereas they were ob­lig'd to suppress the Traditions and Memorials of the People whom they had conquer'd.

5. As no Man is presum'd to lie, or cheat, without some great Temp­tation; so the most glorious things that are said of us, are true beyond debate. As our having defended the Ground in which we setled, a­gainst all opposition to this very day: Our having put the first stop to the Roman Greatness; our ha­ving beat the far more numerous Britans, though defended by strong Walls, and stronger Romans: All which cannot be deny'd to have been done by us, and are equally noble, whether we were setled here or not, when we did them. After those controverted Times, it cannot be deny'd, that we carried our Con­quests further into Britain than for­merly: That we fought long with success against the Saxons and Picts, and did at last extirpate the latter: And when we were alone, we conti­nued, and extended our former Con­quests [Page 20] against the Danes and Nor­mans; which proves also, that in the Wars which we had against the Romans in conjunction with the Picts, the Victories we then got, are chiefly to be ascrib'd to us. And to crown all, we have gene­rously contributed all that was in our power, to support that Anci­ent and Royal Family (so unpa­rallell'd for its antiquity) by which we were animated, and instructed to do all those great Actions, till they are now become the Monarchs of the whole Isle; having by a hap­pier way extinguished those Wars and Animosities, and may he be un­happy who revives them.

For clearing how this Tradition might have been, and was preserv'd; Our History tells us of a probable way among many others, which was, That at the Coronation of our Kings, one appeared and recited his whole Genealogy. I shall trou­ble my Reader only with a proof of this Custom, which is such as confirms also the Genealogy of King Alexan­der the 3d, in the year 1249, pri­or to Fordon's time, or to the view [Page 21] of any such Debate, and is related by Fordon and Major in the Life of that King; and being so memo­rable a Fact, and so near Fordon's own time, his Relation cannot but be credited. His words are, That the King being plac'd in the Marble-Chair, the Crown upon his Head, and the Scepter in his Hand, and the No­bility being set below Him, a Venera­ble old High-landed Gentleman stept out, and bowing the Knee, express'd himself to the King in the High-land Language thus; God bless you King Alexander, Son of Alexander, Son of William, &c. And so carried up the Genealogy to Fergus the First: Which Custom was most so­lemnly us'd at the Coronation of King Charles the Martyr, at which time their Pictures were expos'd, and noblest Actions recited.

As also the reciting of their Ge­nealogy was usual at the Burial of ours Kings, a written Proof of which Tradition, is to be seen in a Manuscript of Baldredus Abbas Ry­nalis; (for that which is the Abba­cy of Melros, was so called before King David's time, who designs [Page 22] them so in the Foundations of the Lands of Melros, which he gives to them) and is related verbatim by Fordon, consisting of eighteen Chap­ters, mentioning the memorable Acti­ons of King David, upon whom the Lamentation is made, who died 1151; and running up the Genealo­gy of the said St. David to Fergus the First, dedicated to Henry Prince of England, Grand Nephew to St. David, who came to the Crown of England, Anno 1154, under the name of Henry the Second: In both which at least Fordon is to be be­liev'd, having sufficient Vouchers. This also being ordinary in our High-land Families to this very day, not only at Burials, but Baptisms and Marriages: and in which Fa­milies, Men continue still to be de­sign'd from their Fathers, Grand­fathers, and very many Generations upwards; as is a sufficient Historical Proof of Tradition, tho we had no other Warrant for those few Ages.

Before I come to clear that we had Manuscripts and Records, SECT. 3. it is fit to consider that is very proba­ble, Proofs from Manuscripts and Records. [Page 23] that as the History of most Na­tions was preserv'd by their Priests and Church-men: so ours would be very ready to oblige the Kings, under whom, and the People among whom they liv'd, by writing their Annals. And therefore we may reasonably conclude, that since we were very early Christians, we had therefore ancient Histories written by our Church-men, besides those which we may pretend to have been transmitted to them by the Druids. And the Bishop himself acknow­ledges that the Monastery of Hy, call'd by us Icolm-kill, (that is Hy, the Cell of Columba) was founded about the year 560; and it is unde­niable, that 48 of our old Kings were buried, and our Records were kept there since its Foundation, until the Reign of Malcolm Can­more: and it is also certain, that our Annals were written in our Mona­steries, such as Scoon, Pasley, Plus­cardin, and Lindesfern Beda passim. govern'd by three Scotish-Bishops, Aidan, Fi­nan, and Colman; and Abercorn, men­tion'd by Lib. 4. cap. 26. Beda; and Melross, the Chronicle whereof begins where [Page 24] Beda ends, as their History now printed shews: though certainly that English Manuscript is very un­faithful, for most of the things re­lating to our Nation are omitted, as particularly about the beginning, in the year 844. Our Manuscript observes (which the English has not) That Alpin King of the Scots died, to whom succeeded his Son Kenneth, who beat the Picts, and was declared first King of all Scotland, to the Wa­ter of Tine; and after it expresses in his Epitaph,

And it observes that he was called the first King of Albany, not because he was the first who made the Scotish Laws, but because he was the first King of all Scotland. And each of our Monasteries had two Books, the one call'd their Register, or Chartu­lary, containing the Records rela­ting to their private securities; and another call'd their Black-book, con­taining an account of the memo­rable [Page 25] things which occur'd in e­very Year. And as it is strongly presumable, that our Historians would have compil'd our Histories from those: So this being a matter of Fact, is probable by Witnesses: and I thus prove it in such a way and manner as is sufficient to main­tain any History. Verimundns a Spaniard, Arch-deacon of St. Andrews, in Anno 1076, (as is remarked by Pag. 229. Chambers of Ormond) declares in the Epistle to his Book of the Histo­rians of Scotland, dedicated to King Malcolm, call'd Can-more; That, al­beit there are many things in the said Histories, which may seem to the Rea­ders to be a little difficult to be belie­ved, because they are not totally con­firmed by Foreign Historians: Yet af­ter have they heard how the Scots were setled in the North Part of the Isle of Albion, separated by the Sea from the firm Land, and so seldom troubled by Strangers, to whom they give no occasi­ons to write their Actions; and also that they have not been less happy in having almost always among them the Druids, Religious People, and di­ligent Chroniclers, before the Reception [Page 26] of the Christian Faith, and continu­ally since Monks, faithful Historians in the Isles of Man, and Icomkill; where they kept securely their Monu­ments and Antiquities, without giving a sight, or Copy of them to strangers; they will cease to wonder. This Cham­bers was a Learned Man, and a Lord of Session, who wrote anno 1572, and in his Pag. 13. Preface, says, That he had those principal Authors, Verimund a Spaniard, Turgot Bishop of St. An­drews, John Swenton, John Campbel, and Bishop Elphinstoun, &c. and many great Histories of the Abbacies of Scoon, called the Black-book, and of other like Chronicles of Abbacies, as that of Inch-colm, and Icolmkill, the most part whereof he took pains to con­sider as much as was possible for him. He Pag. 24.cites Verimund for an account of the Scots and Picts, and after he also Pag. 94.cites him for the Miracle of St. Andrews in Hungus's time; and he Pag. 95, & 96.gives an account of the tenor of the League betwixt Charles the Great, and Achai­us, and asserts that the same was ex­tracted out of the Registers and Books he mention'd, and particularly, out of the second Book of Verimund. [Page 27] Sir Richard Baker cites this Verimund, among the Authors out of whom he compiled his History; and with him he cites Ioannes Campbellus, who (he says) wrote the History of the Scots from the Origine of the Na­tion till the Year 1260, in which he liv'd: And also Turgot, who (he says) wrote our Annals from the beginning till the Year 1098, in which he liv'd, (and him likewise Hollinshed cites); as also Aluredus Rivallensis, who wrote the History of King David, and died Anno 1166; and Bartholomeus Anglicus, who wrote a Chronicle of the Scots, and liv'd in the Year 1360. Two of which three last, we have reason to think were Scots-men, and have been called English-men, only because they liv'd in the Counties which now be­long to England, but then certainly belong'd to us; and if they be English­men, they are yet the more credible Witnesses for us. And as the worthy Baker says, he compil'd his History out of these Books, which he neither would nor could have said, if he had not seen them: So it is very probable that he did see them; our Records [Page 28] and Manuscripts having been indu­striously carry'd to England by Ed­ward the First, as shall be hereafter observ'd: Nor can it be answer'd, that he cited them at second-hand from Boeth, or Buchannan, for else he had cited the other Authors whom they cite, such as Richardus de sancto victore, Fordon, Major, &c. All this doth evidently demonstrate that we had such Historians as Verimund, and the others above-cited, who asserted before Fordon what he has related: so that it was most unwarrantable to say, that these things were dream'd by Fordon and Boethius, but that Verimund was seen and consider'd by others, and cited in a particular part of his Book, which could not be copied from Boethius, because he doth not cite Verimund for all those Transactions; and upon this Part Post. Balaeus, a Learn'd English-man, hath rested. And Pag. 100, & pag. 460. Holinshed says, that Verimund wrote a Book, De Regibus Scotorum. Nor can it be deny'd that Gesner in verbo Verimund, and other famous Strangers, cite him as one who has written our History ab exordio Scoticae gentis, usque ad Mal­colmi [Page 29] tempora. And it is incredible to think so good and grave a Man as Boetius could have been so impudent to assert in Et Lib. 7.his Dedication to King Iames the 5th, That these Books were sent to him by the Earl of Argile, and his Brother the Thesaurer from Icolm­kill, and that, he had follow'd them in writing his History: Especially since he is by Erasmus that great Critick, admir'd as a most Learned Man, they having studied together at Paris, where he remembers that he was in great e­steem. And in a Letter concerning him, Anno 1530, inserted in the Life of Erasmuus, he remarks, that Boe­thius was a Person who could not lie. How can it then be imagined, that he would have adventur'd to have printed a whole Romance, and have told his King and the World, that he had the Manuscripts by him? Nor is this asserted only by Boethius, and our own Historians, but by Paulus Iovius, a very famous Fo­reign Historian, who in his Descrip­tion of Scotland, says, Asservantur in arcanis templi armariis vetustissimorum Annalium Codices at (que) item latae membranae, ipso­rum Regum subscriptae manibus aureis (que) vel cereis sigillorum imaginibus obsignatae; quibus antiquae leges edicta (que) & finium ac Civitatum Iura publica continentur.That in Iona [Page 30] (which we call Icolmkill) are kept the ancient Annals and Manuscripts in hidden Presses of the Church, and large Parchments asigned by the King's own hands, and seal'd either with Seals of Gold, or Wax. By which also it appears how nice we have been in securing the Faith of our History, the Seals of our Kings be­ing put to what was written by our devout Church-men. And whereas the Bishop of St. Asaph, to lessen the Credit of Boethius Pag. 38. Pref., relates, that Bishop Gavin Dowglas advised Polidor Virgil not to follow his Histo­ry. Polidor Virgil himself is appeal'd to, where there is no mention of Boethius at all, nor could it be; for Polidor regrates that Gavin Dowglas died Anno 1520, whereas Boethius was not publish'd till 1526, and Lib. 7. Boethius himself informs us, That the Records from which he form'd his History, were sent him from Icolmkill Anno 1525, and no sooner; neither did he see those Warrants from which he wrote his History, till that Year. And it appears by that passage, that Gavin Dowglas believ'd our account, and produc'd a Manu­script [Page 31] for it, which I now cite, and use as an accessory Argument, and prove it by the Bishop of St. Asaph, and Polidor: and whereas the Bi­shop of St. Asaph pretends that the Relation given by Gavin Dowglas agreed with Nennius, but contradicted Boethius; the contrary is probable by Polidor's own Relation of what Gavin Dowglas writ to him, which agrees with Boethius in every thing relating to our Antiquity. The Bishop of St. Asaph is also most un­just to Boethius, in alledging that Vossius considers him as a fabulous Author: For Vossius commends him from what Erasmus and Buchannan say of him, and in the end taxes him only a little for having believ'd too many Miracles, a fault incident to most Popish Writers in those times, but to none more than to the Bi­shop's own obscure Authors, for which, among many other Testimo­nies, I refer my Reader to them who writ the Preface to the Histo­ries of Matthew of Westminster, and to the Life of King Alfred, and Wal­singham's History. It can also be proved by many famous Gentlemen, [Page 32] that the Black Book of Scoon, con­taining our Histories from the be­ginning, was among President Spot­wood's Books, and was given by Lewis Cant to Major General Lam­bert, and by him to Collonel Fairfax; which Book King Charles the first had ransom'd from Rome by a conside­rable Sum of Money. And it is certain that Spotswood had it, and the Black Book of Pasley, signed by the hands of three Abbots, when he compil'd his History: Which Book of Pasley, together with the famous Book of Pluscardin, Buchan­nan says he had, and frequently cites: and that there were such Books is known to the whole Nation. And I my self have seen in the Learned Sir Robert Sibbald's Libra­ry (to whom this Nation owes very much) a very old Abridg­ment of the Book of Pasley (which Book Bp Vsher himself also cites) agreeing in every thing with our Histories, and which was extracted per venerabilem virum Ioannem Gibson Canonicum Glasguensem, & Recto­rem de Renfrew, Anno 1501. And two other old Manuscripts, the one [Page 33] called, Excerpta de Chronicis Scotiae, & Scoti-chronico, which comes to the Reign of King Iames the 2d. and belong'd to Doctor Arbuthnot Physi­cian to King Iames the 5th; and this proves that there were Chronica dif­ferent from Fordon's. And the o­ther, Extracta de Registro priora­tus Sancti-Andreae, giving the Irish Names of our Kings. As also I have seen a Manuscript written by a Brother of the minores Observants of Iedburgh, in Anno 1533, con­taining an Abridgment of our Hi­story, and whereof Doctor Sibbald has another Copy. And there is another old Manuscript written by Ventonius yet extant, which Buchan­nan also cites, and follows.

Since the Writing of these Sheets, I have seen a very old Manuscript brought from Icolmkill, written by Carbre Lifachair, who liv'd six Cen­turies before St. Patrick, and so a­bout our Saviours time; wherein is given a full account of the Irish Kings: By which I conclude, that since the Irish had Manuscripts then, certainly we must also be allowed to have had them, having greater oc­casion [Page 34] of learning Sciences, and wri­ting Histories; because of our Com­merce with the Romans, and polite Britans. In this Book also there are many Additions by the Druids of those times: from which I likewise may confirm that the Priests in our old Monasteries learn'd our Ancient History from the Druids who pre­ceded them.

I have seen also an old Genealogy of the Kings of the Albanian Scots, agreeing with that mentioned in our History at the Coronation of King Alexander the 2d, and which has still been preserv'd as Sacred there.

I have also seen another old Ma­nuscript, wherein the Dalreudini Al­banach are considered as setled here six Generations before Eric, whom Vsher calls the Father of our Kings. I find also in it, that Angus Tuerteam­pher reign'd in Ireland five Generati­ons before our Fergus the First; and that in his time the Irish and Albani­ans divided, and separated from one another. Which agrees with our Histories, which say, that the Scots were in this Country long before King Fergus and his Race setled here. [Page 35] And these our Irish Manuscripts a­gree in every thing with the above­cited History of Corbre', and are in effect Additions to his Book by our old Sanachies.

Having thus cleared, that there were sufficient Warrants upon which our Authors might have founded their Histories; I shall in the next place say something of our Histori­ans, and make appear that they de­serv'd the credit and applause they met with, and that they founded their History on those good War­rants, from which Verimund, Boetius, and Chambers are formerly prov'd to have drawn theirs, viz. our ancient Annals and Registers.

Fordon was no Monk, as the Pag. 26. Pref. Bi­shop is pleas'd to call him, and we had no such Monastery as Fordon: but he was venerabilis vir dominus Iohannes Fordon Presbyter, and is called a Monk by the Bishop (who studies still his own conveniency) to make the World believe he was in­clin'd to lie, as the Monks are said to have been in that Age; and to shew him interested for the Independency of Monks and Culdees from Bishops. [Page 36] This Author began at least to write before the Year 1341; for, in his Book he speaks of that as a present Year. This Book was so esteem'd, that there were Copies of it in most of our Monasteries, and one of them we have in very old, but in fair Characters, continued by Arelat; another continued by a Reverend Man, Walter Bowmaker, Abbot of Icolmkill, and found in the custody of one, who had preserv'd several of the Manuscripts of that Monastery: And both these Continuations have drawn out our Histories to the Reign of King Iames the 2d. And it is not to be imagin'd that the Monasteries would have esteem'd it so much; or that the Abbot of that Monastery, where our chief Annals were kept, would have continued it, if they and he had not known it to agree with their Annals. And Fordon cites fre­quently through his Book Chronica, & alia Chronica, and Beda, and fol­lows him exactly: he cites also A­damnanus, who liv'd before the Year 700; and Turgot Archbishop of St. Andrews, who lived anno 1098, and Alvared, (who dedicated his Book to [Page 37] King Malcom the 3d, about the year 1057.) He cites also other foreign Authors, such as Sigisbert, and Isidor, and so has done all that the Bishop requires, and all that the best Histo­rians can do: Neither does he fol­low Ieffrey, but contradicts him, even in the instance of Bassianus, as shall be cleared to conviction, in answer­ing the Bishop's Objections. He has in him also Baldredus or Ethelredus, and the Process before the Pope, containing the Copies of the au­thentick Letters, Objections, Apo­logies, and Answers made and sign'd by Edward 1. and his Parliament, and the Scotish Nobility, produc'd be­fore the Pope, about the year 1300, whereof the Copies are not only extant from Fordon, but the Bishop also insinuates that the Originals themselves are extant in England, and certainly they were at Rome. And Fordon cites many other consi­derable old Records: He writes in a good Stile, and with good Judg­ment: and the reason why this Work was not printed, was not be­cause it deserv'd not the Press, but because Boethius, Buchannan, and [Page 38] Lesly having printed their Histories in their own time, and there being no printing in his, it was thought we had Histories enow; which also oc­casion'd the perishing of many of our excellent Manuscripts. But why should the Bishop object to us For­don his not being printed, since he cites against us Manuscripts never cited by any, and which have been left unprinted in a Country where every thing is printed: and I dare say, after exact perusal of the Bi­shops Book, and of the Authors cited by him, that Fordon is prefe­rable to all those old Legends, and most of those Authors which he cites against us, venerable Beda only ex­cepted, who is still on our side.

Ioannes Major was Rector of the famous Divinity-School of Paris, and was a Man of such Reputation in that University, as that he is yet remembred with esteem, and a Man of too innocent a life, to have writ­ten a Romance for a History; and he likewise relates to Beda, and our An­nals. Of Iohn Major a full account and Elogium is given by the Learn'd Launoy Academiae Parisionsis illustrata, [Page 39] Tom. 2. pag. 652, 653. & sequent.

One of the most accurate Writers in this Age Vicfort me­moirs des Am­bassadeurs. says, That the talent of writing History hath not been found on this side of the Alps in any, save in Bu­channan, who hath written the History of Scotland, better than Livius did that of Rome. The Bishop of Condom also, and the famous Rapin, in their exact Essays concerning History, have preferr'd none to him, save Mariana the Jesuit, whom all Men know to be far inferior; but they prefer Ma­riana, because Buchannan was a Pro­testant. Ioseph Scaliger says of Bu­channan and Us,

And Pref. new Translat. of Plutarch's Lives. Mr. Dryden also my Friend, whom I esteem a great Critick, as well as Poet, prefers Buchannan to all the Historians that ever wrote in Britain. And tho I approve as little of Buchannan's Politicks as the Bishop of St. Asaph doth, yet I will not be so unjust to him as he is, Pag. 30. Pref.in saying, That Buchannan in the [Page 40] Life of Fergus the First, refers to our old Annals, but he cites them not; for there is no such thing in the Life of that King: And he was not so much a favourer of Monar­chy, to have allow'd it the advan­tage of so singular an Antiquity, if he had not found the same due to it, from our Manuscripts and Re­cords, beyond all contradiction.

Bishop Lesly, and Arch-bishop Spotswood are Men who have writ­ten our History with great judgment and truth, and it cannot be imagin'd that they who were indeed banish'd for Loyalty, and suffer'd the loss of all for their Perswasion, would have asserted a whole bundle of Lies, or a continued Romance, as the Author calls our History, especially since they had both seen Luddus, and knew that their History would be enquired into. And Ia quibus scribendis ne Hi­storia lex viola­retur, illae quae prius scripta sunt, non solum exegimus ad ve­ritatem annalium, qui in publico Regni nostri archivo, aliisque antiquissimis codicibus quos majores nostri Pasleti, Sconae, ac in aliis Monasteriis reli­giose servarunt, continebantur. Lesl. paraen. ad nobil. populumque Scot. Pag. 29. Lesly has the confidence to tell in his Preface to the Nobility, That his History had been drawn with all the exactness that the truth of Hi­story [Page 41] requires from the ancient Records of the Kingdom, and the Monaste­ries, and he was then at Rome, whi­ther they were carried. It is also very pleasant to hear the Bishop of St. Asaph inveigh against Dempster the Jesuit, one of our Antiquaries, whose Book certainly he had never seen, else he would never have call'd him a Jesuit as he Pag. 153. does. For the very Title of his Book bears that he was Baro de Muiresk, and a Lawyer, and he was indeed Pro­fessor honorarius of the Civil Law at Bolognia in Italy, and died married, as the History of his Life, writ by Peteraces, bears: and we may know by the Elogies of the greatest Wits in Italy, how much they esteem'd him for his extraordinary Learning, and Parts. I may add to these, Da­vid Camerarius de fortitudine, &c. Scotorum, besides Richardus de sancto victore, and Cornelius Hibernicus, both which wrote our ancient Histories, the last of them liv'd in the year 1140. And they are both follow'd by Boethius, and ci­ted by Vossius, Baleus, Sixtus Se­nensis, and others; and also Adam­nanus [Page 42] that wrote St. Columba's Life.

From all which it appears, that our Historians have been Men of great credit and esteem, and have founded their History upon more authentick Documents, than almost any other Historians in the World, viz. the Records of many Monasteries in the time when Monasteries were very devout, and upon the universal Tradition of the times, both ancient and modern; and that before there was any competition or controversie concerning our Antiquity; and that what they have said, has been univer­sally believ'd by all the learned World. To which I shall add that our Clerk of Registers, Skeen, the great Antiqua­ry, had added from those ancient Records a Chronology of our Kings, and which he has inserted amongst our Acts of Parliament. Is not then the Bishop of St. Asaph much to blame, when he would have all this pass for a Romance, and all those Authors to be reputed only as one? Because, as he says, they fol­lowed one another from Fordon, and he follow'd Ieffrey; neither of which is so. Tho I confess the con­trivance [Page 43] of this untruth was prety, but happily disappointed, by their asserting that they founded their Histories upon the old Records of our Monasteries, and on Turgot, Ve­rimund, and others; all which they had seen, and who are elder than Fordon. And it might be as well objected against Witnesses, that they came in and depos'd one after ano­ther, giving for the reason of their knowledg, that they had seen what they depos'd.

If all these Manuscripts, which I have cited were extant, I doubt not but the Author himself would acknowledg our Histories to be in­structed beyond debate; and there­fore if I can instruct them to have once been, they must be reputed as good as extant still. For both Law, and common Reason having consi­der'd that Papers are very subject to be lost, and to perish; have therefore allow'd, that if it can be prov'd, that there were such Papers, and that they were lost by accident, that this probation shall supply the loss. And I desire to know if the Warrants of Dr. Burnet's History of [Page 44] the Reformation had been burnt, would not the Bishop of St. Asaph have been angry, if his Testimony and Dr. Stillingfleet's had not been sufficient to prove the tenor of them? And what have we for many Authors, whom Livy, Iosephus, and Herodot cite besides their own Testi­mony? And what probation did ever Mankind see stronger, than that which we adduce in this case? For first, that all our Monasteries did write our Annals, is beside com­mon Fame, and universal and late Tradition, which passes over all our Country, prov'd by the other Au­thorities above cited: If then two ordinary Witnesses be sufficient to prove a matter of Fact, we must much more allow, that this matter may be prov'd by very many Persons, con­siderable for their Devotion and Quality. 2. There are other Ma­nuscripts yet extant, some whereof I my self have seen, and have for­merly nam'd, all agreeing with the tenour of our History, and long prior to Luddus's starting of this Debate, in Anno 1572. And so must prove sufficient to support [Page 45] our Histories, and those Witnesses; especially seeing they have nothing in them contrary to Reason, or o­ther credible Histories; but on the contrary, are supported by both, and written by Authors of great In­tegrity and Knowledg, and have been receiv'd with great applause in the World, and are also confirm'd by the English Historians themselves. And therefore I must conclude with the Learned Vossius, De Hist. Lat. pag. 4. That albeit the old Monuments of Rome perisht, that therefore the Faith of their History should not perish with them.

Lest it might be thought that we our selves caus'd to destroy those Records we now cite, to prevent further inquiry, and to shew how much harder it is for us than other Nations, to be call'd to such an ac­count: I shall desire Strangers to be inform'd as a casus omissionis, that our ancient Records were destroy­ed in three remarkable occasions; 1. When Edward the First took a­way all our Records that he could find, having, as all Historians de­clare, resolv'd to abolish all memory of our Nation: and of which we [Page 46] accus'd him before the Pope, and he did not deny it. 2. When our Monks flying to Rome at the Refor­mation, carry'd with them their Re­cords. 3. By Cromwel, who carry'd our Records into England, and many of which were lost at Sea in their return.

But if our Historians are to be re­jected, SECT. 4. I hope it must be by the Authority of far more, The other Historians of this Isle cited against us, ex­amined. and far more credible Authors, agreeable to a Principle of Dr. Stillingfleet's, the Patron of our Bishop's Book, who Orig. Sac. p. 114. Sect. 5.says, Certainly they who undertake to contradict that which is received by common Consent, must bring stronger and clearer Evidence, than that on which that Consent is grounded, or else their Exceptions ought to be rejected with the highest Indignation. Which Principle, as it seems to be recom­mended by Reason, so it is founded upon the express Law of all Nati­ons; by which it is acknowledg'd, that the Testimonies of Witnesses are not to be reprobated but by others in a double number, and who are of far greater Authority. And [Page 47] from this Principle it is, that if a Jury of fifteen hath absolv'd a Man unjustly, though that Jury consisted of the meanest Men of the Nation, yet their Verdict cannot be questi­on'd for error, otherways than by twenty five, whereof most part must be Persons of Quality, who must proceed upon most infallible grounds and evidences. By this rule then, our Historians cannot be redargu'd, otherways than by the Testimonies of far more unsuspected Historians, who agree in what they assert a­gainst us, and who are receiv'd with greater applause in the World than ours, and proceed upon far stron­ger Evidences. Let us then exa­mine if these Qualifications can be found in those Historians, by whom the faith of ours is to be overturned. And first, as to the old British Hi­storians, it might be objected by us, that they are too much interested, both because the Subject Matter is an emulation for Antiquity between the two Nations, and because they were over-run by our Country­men at that time to a degree to make them passionate enough for disabling [Page 48] a Witness: And as it is very remark­able that Florentius Wigorniensis, Malmesburiensis, Huntingdonensis, and Hoveden wrote about the Reign of Henry the Second; and Tho. Wal­singham, and Matthew of Westmin­ster, in the Reigns of Edward the Third, and Henry the Sixth; at all which times there were Wars and Animosities betwixt the Nations. So if any Man will read the sad Lamentations that are in Gilda's, and the rage with which he cries out a­gainst us, no Man can allow him to be an unsuspected Judg or Witness in what concerns our Honour. Po­lidor Virgil suspects, Pag. 16. that there are some things supposititious in the History of Gildas; and if any thing, certain­ly we may suspect most what is ad­ded concerning us; since the de­sign of detracting from our History, possest too much those who were Masters of that Manuscript, and printed the same. And yet Gildas says very little that can be wrested against us in the Points controver­ted; being, as Beda interprets him, clearly for us, as shall hereafter ap­pear. 2. As our Writers are not [Page 49] inferiour in number, so most of theirs deserve no credit, and they agree not so well against us in the Points controverted, as our Authors do in what they assert, viz. when we setled here, and who were our first Kings: For Cap. 3. as cited by S. A­saph, pag. 14. Pref. Nennius Britannus does posi­tively say, that the Scots came here in the time of Brutus. Matthew of Westminster says, that we setled here the eleventh year after Christ. And Baker Pag. 2. acknowledgeth that Severus built his Wall against the Scots and Picts, without mentioning this to be the first incursion; and this at least confutes the Bishop of St. Asaph, who asserts that we were not come to this Isle even by way of incursion, till after the year 300. As they thus differ remarkably as to our Origi­nation, and most of them follow Ieffreys ridiculous Inventions, as our Author himself acknowledges: So Pag. 16. Holinshed, speaking of those ancient times, says, That Scotland had in those days two Kingdoms, the one whereof consisted of the Picts, called Pictland; and the other of the Irish Race, call'd Scotland: which I hope (says he) no wise Man will readily deny. And [Page 50] Caixton in his old Chronicle of Eng­land, tells, that the King of the Scots assisted Cassibelan King of the Bri­tains against Julius Caesar: which shews that our Antiquity was be­lieved. And Balaeus, a most famous English Chronologist, says, that Bal. Pref. part post. the Scots wrote, &c. ex incorrupta annali­um Fide. 3. That our settlement was so ancient, as not only to have been contemporary with their Historians, but even to be higher than their Chronology could reach to, appears from this, that Gildas declares De excid. Brit. he knew nothing of us, but what he was forc'd to borrow from beyond Sea. Cap. 1. Beda. Be­da places us amongst the old Inhabitants of this Isle, without condescen­ding upon the particular time, which he had given us, if he had known it himself, as he did in all o­ther occasions. Nennius their next Author to Beda owns, that the most skillful amongst the Scots, affirm'd in his time, that we were descended from Scota, as our Authors now do. St. Asaph, p. 10.And the eldest after him affirm, that we are descended from Albanactus, second Sond to Brutus. And this is so far acknowledg'd by succeeding [Page 51] Ages, that Edward the First did up­on that account claim the superiority to England over us, as younger Brother to Locrinus the eldest Son of Brutus. And we may see in Hollinshed, Lib. 2. De­script. Britan. cap. 8. & 9. where he brings in many Scotish Kings doing Homage to the Kings of Britain, long before this year 502, and in which several of their Authors agree with him. And the Bishop fore-seeing the unanswerable strength of this Argument, acknowledges this Superiority to be a most unjust Pre­tension, as indeed it is; especially seeing it is undeniable, that there was any such thing known in the World then, as that Feudol Homage which the English Historians contend for; there being no Vestige thereof in any part of Europe, till the 800 year of God, and we having had no such Kings as some of those whom they name in that ancient Homage. But yet even all these Forgeries prove clearly, that we were consider'd by those Writers, as Inhabitants here past all Memory, and as ancient as themselves. Girald. Camb. Distinct. 3. cap. 7. Gi­raldus Cambrensis also considers us as descended from Gathelus and Scota, [Page 52] which proves not only that this old Tradition was believ'd, but that Fordon was not the inventer of it. For Girald liv'd about 200 years before Fordon. But how any Hi­storian in this also can controvert this Antiquity after Selden has asser­ted it, Lib. 2. cap. 8. I understand not. There is likewise a very full and well written Manuscript in the hands of the Lord Maitland, which makes us to come from Spain, about the year of the World 3242, and to have been first govern'd by Captains, and thereafter govern'd by the Kings mention'd in our History. 4. There are no positive Authorities produc'd against us, con­descending expresly when our Royal Line did begin, save three Legendary Stories written with design, in whom no Protestant Bishop can find any considerable Passages worthy to be cited; the easiest thing in them be­ing, Vita St. Pat. Cap. 5. That a Child made a Fire of Ice; Vita Columb. Adamn. lib. 3. c. 16. and that when St. Columba was sick, his Mare wept.

The first is a nameless Author of St. Patrick's Life, cited by De Eccl. Brit. primord. p. 587. Vsher, who affirms, that when Neil Neili­alagh was King of Ireland, and Con­stantius [Page 53] was Emperor, Muredus King of Ulster had six Sons, who possest themselves of the Northern Parts of Britain, and the Nation sprung from them (as Giraldus repeating this pas­sage, says) was by a special name cal­led Scotland. And it may be, saith the Bishop, Reuda mention'd by Be­da, was one of these six Sons. Joce­line, another Author of St. Patrick's Life, Cap. 137. tells, that the twelve Sons of the King of Dalrieda in Ireland, ha­ving despised their youngest Brother Fergus, he complain'd of them to St. Pa­trick, and he prophesied to him, that from him should descend Kings, who should reign in many Foreign King­doms; and accordingly Fergus became King of all Dalrieda, and after his Successors had for many Generations reigned there, Aidanus the Son of Ga­branus conquer'd Albania, now call'd Scotland, and the other Isles, in which his Posterity by due Succession reign to this day. But an elder Author ci­ted by Cambden (and whom Pag. 160. Usher calls the writer of the Tigernack An­nals) brings the Scotish Kings from another Origine, to which Usher him­self is inclin'd. Fergus (says that [Page 54] Author) the Son of Eric, was the first of the offspring of Chonar, who obtain'd the Kingdom of Albania from Brown-Albain, to the Irish Sea and Inchgall, whom he places Anno 503, and from him the Kings of Fergus' s race reign'd in Brun-Albain, or Brun-heir to Alphin the Son of Eo­chal, and with this (as the Bishop says) the Irish Genealogies agree. And thus our approv'd History must be overturn'd by Legends, and Ge­nealogies.

Upon which passages I beg leave to make these few Reflections. First, that (besides, that these Authors liv'd not within 600 years of the times of which they wrote (which the Bishop of St. Asaph objects to ours) they do also contradict not only our Story, but the Roman, who place us here much sooner). All these three Authors contradict one another in the most remarkable part of our History, and in so late a matter of Fact, as that of Fergus the Second, which shews them nei­ther faithful nor learn'd Chronolo­gists. The first nameless Author, writer of the Life of S. Patrick, makes [Page 55] our King to have been one of the Sons of Mured, whom Vsher conjectures to have been Reuther, and he must have liv'd in 360; for Constantius reign'd then, and Mured's Son liv'd in his Reign. Iocelin makes Aidan to be the first, and to have sprung from Fergus after many Generati­ons: And this agrees well with ours, but not with the other Writers of St. Patrick's Life. For we place the beginning of Aidan's Reign in 570, and it could be no sooner, accor­ding to Iocelin. The third is the Author of the Tigernack Annals, or an ancienter Writer cited by Camb­den, who places our first King in 503, and there he is call'd Fergus; and so they neither agree in the name of our first King, nor in the time of their entry to this King­dom. Which dreaming Glances have risen from an imperfect notion of our History, the first having bor­rowed his from Beda, who brings us here sub duce Reuda: the second has been invented to fulfil the Pro­phecy of St. Patrick, who promis'd the Kingdom not to Fergus himself, but to one of his Succession, and [Page 56] therefore finding none of our Kings nam'd in Beda, save Reuther and Aidan; he fixes on Aidan as the latest. And the third of these, find­ing that Fergus was uncontroverted­ly the name of our first King, will rather contradict the rest, and go back from Aidan to Fergus. And thus they clensh here, making the the first Fergus the second, as they do elsewhere, in making Scotia to be Ireland, or Scotia major.

2. Since the Bishop's Authors are so irreconcileable, what Warrants can he or they have to contradict our positive History? De Primord. pag. 611. And Bi­shop Vsher cites another Author of St. Patrick's Life, Meyerus, who tells us that after St. Patrick' s Voyage about this Isle, he turn'd his Boat to an Isle which bears to this day the name of St. Patrick; out of which Isle I believe the Accusers of our Histo­rians got their best Intelligence.

3. That this Reuda could not be one of Mureda's six Sons, is most clear, both because Beda speaks of the Scots coming to this Isle, as very ancient, even in his time, which could not be if this had happen'd [Page 57] in Anno 360; for Beda liv'd in Anno 730, and how can it be ima­gin'd that Beda could not have known the whole Series of a Royal Descent that was so recent. Nor do our Historians, whose Faith is not controverted, after Fergus the Second, mention any Reuda after his Reign: and so he behov'd to be an elder King, and consequently we had King's before Fergus the Second, which the Authors denies. Nor could any of these Sons of Mured have been Fergus the Se­cond, whom these late Inventors call our first King; for no Author makes Fergus the Second to have reign'd within more than 40 Years after Constantius. Luddus and Camb­den assert us to have setl'd here, un­der Fergus the Second, in the Reign of Honorius, at which time Fergus the Second did reign. Vsher relates only the three Authorities of those ridiculous Legends; and the Bishop of St. Asaph fixes on the year 503, and so contradicts not only our Hi­storians, but Pag. 62. Luddus and Cap. Scoti. Camb­den in making Fergus the Second near 100 years later, than truly he was.

[Page 58] As these few prime and late Au­thors who controvert our Antiqui­ty, differ thus in the names of our first Kings, and the time of their settlement in Scotland; so they differ in these following cardinal Points of their new invented Hypothesis. The Bishop of Cap. 1. St. Asaph thinks it neces­sary for maintaining that the Scots setl'd not till the year 503, to assert that the Picts fill'd all the Northern Parts of Britain, and that those Picts were a ruder sort of Britains, divided in South and North Picts; in which he follows Camb. Cap. Pict. Cambden, yet with this difference, implying a contradiction, that Cambden makes these Deucaledo­nes and Vecturiones, to signify by a British derivation, Picts, to the East and West: Whereas the Bishop of St. Asaph, from a British derivation of the same words, calls them Sou­thern and Northern Picts. But Camb­den does acknowledge plainly that in this Derivation, he differs from the venerable Beda, whose Authority he truly foretels will weigh down the Reasons he brings for his Con­jecture. And as he, contrary to the universally receiv'd opinion, denies [Page 59] the Picts to be Schythians, tho they were really so, he makes the Scots to be Schythians, though really they were not so.

De Primord. cap. 11. init. Vsher not having considered all the Scheme and Consequences of this new Hypothesis (as the Bishop of St. Asaph has done with more cunning) follows Beda in bringing the Picts from Schythia, but he dif­fers from Beda in that he brings them hither after our Saviour's Birth, and produces such Authors as he uses in our occasions, who assign three different Periods of time for their settlement; the last whereof, and to which he inclines, is said to be under the Emperours Gratian and Valentinian; and so makes the Scots and Picts to have come in together about the year 400, and yet he finds no inconveniency in bringing us to Scotland under Gathelus and Scota, and in asserting that we setled first in Galloway, whereas none of our Historians do say that Gathelus and Scota came to Scotland, and the Bishop of St. Asaph and Camb­den assert our descent from Scota to be a Fiction; and the Bishop of [Page 60] St. Asaph Cap. 1. confesses us to have first fixt in Argile.

Another material difference a­mongst them is, that the Bishop of St. Asaph Cap. 1. Sect. 12, & 13. confines us and the Picts, for 1000 years be-north Grahams Dike, call'd Severus Wall, beyond Clyde and Forth. Whereas Camb­den Cap. Pict.asserts that Edinburgh was the chief Seat of the Kings of the Picts, and derives the names of Louthian, Edingburgh, and Pictland, from Pictish words.

From all which it clearly appears, that no weight is to be laid on such irreconcileable Authors; and yet by these only, is the Antiquity of of our Kings and Nation contro­verted. But to confirm fully our History from Iulius Caesar's time, and to shew that the British Historians do not only contradict one another, but do contradict the two only an­cient Historians, who could under­stand any thing of our Origine, as being the eldest and most deserving of all their own Authors, viz. Gil­das and Beda; I do appeal to them. And I begin with Beda, because he is most full, and interprets the other. [Page 61] The venerable Beda, tho a Saxon himself, and so an Enemy to us, having written an exact Chronology, according to the periods of time; does in his first cap. de Quinque gen­tium linguis u­nam eandemque summoe veritatis, & verae subli­mitatis scientiam scrutatur, confi­tetur Anglo­rum, viz. Bri­tonum, Scoto­rum, &c. Bed. l. 1. cap. 1. Eccl. Hist. priscis incolis, tell us, that God was praised in five languages in this Isle, that of the Eng­lish, Britains, Scots, Picts, and La­tines: and then proceeds to tell, that the Britains were the first possessors, and possest the south parts, after which came the Picts to the northern parts, and the Scots under Reuda, thereafter made a third Nation, in that part belonging to the Picts, getting the western part of Scotland, North from the Picts, cal­led Dumbriton, or Alcluith. And he inculcates their fixing here, by three several, but concuring Ex­pressions. 1. Progressi ex Hibernia, they left Ireland. 2. Sedes vindica­runt in Britannia, they setled in Bri­tain. 3. In Britannia Britonibus & Pict is gentem tertiam addiderunt, they added a third Nation to the Britains and Picts. And that this was very ancient is clear; for he fixes them in Britain in that Chapter wherein he treats de priscis incolis; and having thus setled the Scots and Picts in his [Page 62] first Chapter with the Britains; he proceeds in the second Chapter to settle the fourth Nation, viz. the La­tines or Romans, beginning with these words, Verum eadem Britannia Ro­manis usque ad Caium Jul. Caes. inaccessa atque in cognita fuit Be­da Hist. Eccles. l. 1. cap. 2. But this Britain was un­known, and not entred upon by the Ro­mans, till Julius Caesar' s time. And having describ'd the Wars betwixt these three Nations and the Roman Emperours, in a due gradation, mark­ing every period of time through the Reign of their consecutive Em­perors; and how at last the Romans had abandon'd the Island, and Aetius the Roman Consul, had refus'd the Petition of the miserable Britains, so often defeated by the Scots and Picts: he in the 14 Cap. relates how the Britains upon deep consultation, brought in the Saxons, and from thence continues the Saxon History. This being the tract of Beda's Hi­story; Is there any place to doubt but that the Scots were setled before the Saxons? For the Wars betwixt the Romans and Scots are related ex­actly before any mention is made of the Saxons; and at last they are on­ly brought in to assist the Britains against the Scots and Picts, because [Page 63] the Britains were deserted by the Romans, and consequently the Sax­ons having been brought in Anno 449, it unanswerably follows, that the Scots were setl'd here, and made a third Nation, long before the 503, as the Bishop of St. Asaph alledges, at which time he makes us to have setl'd here very cunningly, but not sincerely, upon design to make us later than the English. As also it ap­pears very clearly that the Scots setl'd here even before Iulius Caesar's time, for after Beda (who proceeds ex­actly according to the Periods of Time) had setl'd us in Britain, he tells, Verum eadem Britannia Ro­manis usque ad Caium Julius Caes. inaccessa atque incognita fuit. Beda Ec­cles. Hist. l. 1. cap. 2. that this Britain was unknown to the Romans, and describ'd what these Romans did in the Isle, and how they fought with the Picts and Vs under their subsequent Em­perors, without ever speaking again of the entry of the Scots, as having setl'd them in the first Chapter, be­fore Caesar's time. Nor is the time alter'd in any other Period; and he is so careful of the Period of time, that he subjoyns to his Work a Chronological Recapitulation, which is very exact. And he being a Saxon, [Page 64] had certainly told (as the Bishop now does) that the Saxons were elder than we, if this had been true; which is a demonstration according to the Rules of Chronology, against the Bishop of St. Asaph. It may be some may wonder why Beda men­tions not our coming under Fergus the first; and some may object, that in this we go higher than Beda. To which it is answered, That our History confesses, that the Scots came over from Ireland at several times: Once under Fergus the first, but not being numerous enough, Reu­therus brought over another recruit, and thereafter Fergus the second brought over others after his Pre­decessor Eugenius was expell'd by the Romans and Britains. And in so old Antiquity, it's much for Beda, even to know the Descent under Reuda. And whereas the Bishop quarrels Beda, that he gives no Authority for this: The Reply is, that if it were requisite, then one Author behov'd to give another, and he a third, & sic in infinitum. Nor did ever any Man before him require an Authority in so ancient [Page 65] an Author: and this Answer is a full proof of the Bishop's Conviction, who being absolutely gravel'd here, he grows as angry at Beda, as at our Historians, and tells, disdainfully, that this might be true for ought Beda knew, and adds, that the Scots were indeed here in Beda's time, and he speaks according to his own time, which were to make Beda speak great non-sense. For Beda speaks here of the preterit, and not the pre­sent time, viz. The first Vastations spoke of by Gildas, and we shall see that others, who lived in the time agree with him.

The second Citation I shall bring from Beda, shall be from the 5th cap. l. 1. Eccl. Hist. where he says, that Bed. lib. 1. cap. 5. Eccl. Hist. Itaque Severus magnam fossam firmissimumque vallum crebris in super turribus communitum a mari ad mare duxit. Severus built a Wall to defend against the other unconquer'd Nations, and in the 12 cap. he tells that Bed. lib. 1. cap. 12. Eccl. Hist. Denique subito duabus gentibus transmarinis vehementer saevis, Scotorum a circio, Pictorum ab Aquilone multos stupet gemitque per annos. Britain was vex'd by the Scots and Picts, two over-Sea, or Transmarine Nations; and thereafter, as if he had been a­fraid that this word Transmarine, might have been mistaken, he adds, [Page 66] Transmarinas autem diicimus [...]as gentes, non quod exraa Bri­tanniam essent positae, sed quia a parte Brito­num erant remo­tae, duobus fini­bus marl inter­jacentibus, quo­rum unus ab ori­entali mari, alter ab occidentali, Britanniae terras longe lateque ir­rumpit quamvis ad se invicem pertinere possunt.that they were not call'd Transmarine, because they liv'd, and were setled out of Britain; but because they were separated from that part of Britain by the two Seas, which did almost meet. And in this he agrees exactly with Tacitus, who in the Life of Agricola, says, that there being a Wall built betwixt these two Seas, the Roman Enemies were clo­sed up as in an Isle. By this place of Beda it is also very clear, that the Scots were setled in Britain whilst the Romans fought against the Picts and Scots, and consequently before they were call'd by the Picts to de­fend them against the Saxons, as is alledged by the Bishop. If the Scots had not been living in this Isle at that time, the explication of Trans­marine had been both ridiculous and untrue. And as it is not presumable that the venerable Beda would have asserted this, if he had not certainly known it; so it was very easy for him to know it, that being so publick a thing, which concern'd his own, as well as his Neighbour Nation. But if the Scots had setled in anno 503, Beda could not have call'd them Cap. 1. Prisci incolae, and reckon'd them [Page 67] amongst the ancient Inhabitants. For a Man living in his time, might have told him, that his Father saw the Scots call'd over by the Picts, and that they settled here in his time. Beda being thus clear to a Demon­stration, as far as Chronology and History can allow: I desire to know how what Gildas says, can contra­dict our History, since he copies Gildas, and liv'd within 200 years of him? and since both wrote the same Actions in almost the same words? Or how can it be imagin'd, that if Gildas had known our O­rigin to be so late, he would not have told it to our disadvantage? where­as on the contrary, he speaks of Scots and Picts as living in this Isle, after the same manner as Transmarine, in the same sense, in which Beda interprets it; which is, because they liv'd not without the Isle, but on the other side of the Wall, which made an Isle. From which it fol­lows necessarily that in Gildas's time, the Scots dwelt not without the Isle of Britain; and Gildas having been born in Anno 493, as is said in the Calculation prefix'd to that [Page 68] Pag. 120. [...]um. edit. Hei­delberg.Edition, which himself relates, it is clear that he was born 10 Years before that Year, in which the Bi­shop of St. Asaph pretends we first settled here; and so certainly he could not but have taken notice of the settlement of a Nation, in which he was so much concern'd. And al­beit he says once, speaking of us, that Hiberni revertuntur domum. Yet that was spoke of us as settl'd here, and as being Irish by extraction, as shall be hereafter clear'd. Nor must our Histories which are so positive and unanimous, be overturn'd by Clenshes and Equivocations, and re­mote weak Consequences, without Authors living at the time, and men­tioning expressly so remarkable an Accident.

Before I enter upon Foreign Ci­tations without the Isle, SECT. 5. Proofs from Foreign Au­thors. I must ob­serve, that we having kept the Ro­mans (the only writing Nation that had any knowledg of these our Isles) from entering our Kingdom; they could not know our Antiqui­ties, as they did those of England or France, whom they had conquer'd. [Page 69] But our being engag'd in a constant War with them, is so universally re­lated by all their Historians; that to deny our being a Nation, and in Britain, when they so frequently and unanimously writ of us, as Gens, & Gens etiam Britannica, fight­ing here, cannot but seem Railery to any Serious Man: and the being able to controvert it, is rather a mark of nimbleness of Wit, than skill in Antiquity. But however I shall produce some few Foreign Au­thors, whose Testimonies seem to me unanswerable, being joyn'd with, and illustrated by what I formerly said from the venerable Beda, and the Historians within this Isle.

My first Author is Eumenius in his Panegyrick to Constantine in praise of his Father Constantius: Eumenius. who pre­ferring the Victory Constantius had over the Britains, to that which Iu­lius Caesar had over them; says, Pag. 258. that the Britains at the time Caesar con­quer'd them, were a rude Nation, being only us'd to fight against the Picts, and Irish of the British Country, Enemies half naked, and so easily yeilded to the Roman Arms and Ensigns. By [Page 70] which Citation, we contend that it is prov'd, that in the time of Iulius Caesar, there was another Nation beside the Picts, who then inhabi­ted Britain, and were a Colony of the Irish; and these must certainly have been the Scots. For it cannot be pretended, that ever there was another Colony of the Irish in Bri­tain, besides us. And it is uncon­troverted on all hands, that we are that Colony of the Irish, who only us'd to fight with the Picts, against the Britains, and therefore that an­swer made by the Bishop, that this place relates only to the Irish, and not to the Scots, is of no moment. But he has another Answer, which his Lordship insists more upon; and for clearing whereof, I must cite the Latin; Ad hoc natio etiam tunc ru­dis, & soli Britanni Pictis modo, & Hibernis assueta hostibus, adhuc semi­nudis, facile Romanis armis signisque cesserunt. His Answer is, that the words, Soli Britanni, are the Nomi­native, and not the Genitive, and his Lordship confesses, Pag. 11. that if the words be in the Genitive, they are clear of Buchannan's side. And that [Page 71] they are of the Genitive, all disinte­rested Men, who understand the La­tin, will confess. And Cambden him­self, tho a learned Schoolmaster, and in other Citations about our Anti­quity, somewhat more humourous, than so worthy a Man needed to be, trusts to no other Answer, but that the Panegyrist spoke here, accord­ing to the Conception of the Age wherein he liv'd. But, as any Cita­tion may be thus answered; so if he had not spoken with relation to the time of Iulius Caesar, the Compari­son and Complement had no great force. The Learned Vsher likewise objects not this to Buchannan, which shews also his Acquiescence. 2. If this, Natio Rudis, had been the same thing with Soli Britanni; and if the sence must be, as his Lordship says, a Rude Nation, the Britains; then not only it had been superfluous, but inconsistent with true sence. For how can the same thing be copulated with it-self? and tho it may be said, Natio rudis Soli Britanni, assueta ho­stibus; yet certainly assueti had been more elegant for an Orator, if Soli Britanni had been the Nominative. [Page 72] And the great In not. in lib. 4. Tibull. Ioseph Scaliger, one of the best Judges both for that kind of Learning and Disinteressedness, exclaims against Luddus, for miscon­structing so the words; and there­fore the Bishop might have spared the saying, Pag. 11. that Cambden ought to have given Buchannan correction; for the great Ioseph Scaliger, and Buchan­nan, that incomparable Humanist, are fitter to give, than receive Cor­rection from any in the Isle, or Age.

I must also observe, that the Bi­shop has pointed these words other­ways than they are in the Author: for in the Author (of Paulus Ste­phanus, and Plantins Editions, who were the most learned and exact of all Printers) there is no Comma im­mediately after tthe words, Soli Bri­tanni, and it is pointed as I have set it down here, and even Pag. 37. Lud­dus is just here. But the Bishop has very wittily added the Comma after these words. Now without the Comma, it is clear, that the Panegy­rist meant Pictis & Hibernis Soli Bri­tanni; and if the Panegyrist had de­sign'd his words should have been construed, as the Bishop has con­stru'd [Page 73] them; so great an Orator would certainly have said, Soli Bri­tanni Natio ad hoc etiam tunc ru­dis, &c. And in this case the words had been clear, and the ingenious Bishop needed not, in translating them, to have been forc'd to use the word Pag. 12. Nation twice, because the sense was hard and unnatural, according to his Construction. And whereas the Bishop pretends, Pag. ibia. that the words construed according to Bu­channan, would not have run so strong in the Comparison: for the strength of the Comparison lies, saith he, in that Julius Caesar' s Victory was not so great, as that of Constantius, because Caesar overcame a Nation, yet rude and un­skilful of War, and only Britains, a Nation us'd to no other Enemies but Picts and Irish: Whereas Constantius overcame Carausius, who had got a Roman Legion on his side, &c. But by his Lordship's favour, the Comparison runs strong enough thus, according to Buchannan's Con­struction. Caesar overcame the Bri­tains when they were yet a rude Nati­on, us'd only to fight against the Picts and Irish who liv'd upon the Land, or [Page 74] Isle of Britain: but Constantius over­came them after they had been long train'd up in War. And certainly a Nation is a far more formidable Ene­my after their being long train'd up in War, than when yet rude, and unexperienc'd; tho they had had the accession of a Roman Legion; which could signify nothing against a whole Roman Army. Nor does it follow, that the words must be ill construed; if so, the Comparison would be stronger: for it is sufficient to sustain the Construction, that in the Com­parison Constantius was to be pre­ferr'd in the way I have mention'd. 4. If there were any doubtfulness in these words, as there is none; yet they ought to be interpreted so, as to consist with other Authors and Histories, and especially with Beda: for in our sence, they confirm his Chronological Account, of our being in this Isle before Iulius Caesar's time: And the Bishop must still re­member, that he cannot overturn our receiv'd Histories, except he produce Arguments which infallibly conclude against them: It being a Rule in Law, that, Verba semper sunt [Page 75] interpretanda potius, ut scriptura, vel actus subsistat; quam ut destruatur. This shews also that in Constantius's time, which was about the Year 300, the Britains were assueti, us'd to fight with the Scots and Picts: and this use must imply a long time. And so it's very probable, that we had frequent Wars with the Britains long before this time, and conse­quently the Bishop errs, Sect. 5, 6. cap. 1. asserting, We were not in Britain even by way of incursion, till the year 300. If it be objected, that in the Phrase Soli Bri­tanni, Britanni is a Substantive; Britannici being still the Adjective; and therefore these words must be construed to be the Nominative Case, as the Bp of St. Asaph alledgeth. I prove the contrary by Lucretius.

A further Confirmation of this arises from the same Eumenius, in [Page 76] this same Panegyrick; where speaking of Constantius's Victory over this Island, he saith, Ne (que) enim ille, tot tan­tis (que) rebus gestis, non dico Caledonum aliorumque Pictorum silvas & paludes, sed nec Hiberniam proximam, nec Thulen ultimam, nec ipsae si quae sunt, fortunatarum Insulas, dignabitur ac­quirere. And tho Vsher foreseeing the force of this Argument, endea­vours to elude it by contending, that by the Caledonii, are here meant the Picts, because the words aliorumque Pictorum, had else been imperti­nent. Yet to make the Scots not to be Caledonians in ancient Au­thors, were too great a Task even for Vsher; that being contrary to the universally receiv'd opinion of all the Learned, Guidus pan­cirollus coment. ad notitiam im­perii occident. p. 159. where he cites for this Dion. Eu­sebius & Spar­tianus, and says that Ca­ledonia apud eos nunc Scotia dicitur Dion. in vita Severi Imp. Anno 207, Berg [...]r l. 1. c. 10. some of which I have cited in the Margin: but for a further Proof, I shall here cite a Roman that liv'd very near Eumeni­us's time, and who almost speaks in the same words with him, Latinus Pacatius Drepanius, who in his Pa­negyrick to Theodosius the elder, who [Page 77] liv'd Anno 367, complements him upon Pag. 248. Edit. Plantin. Redactum ad paludes suas Scotum. having reduc'd the Scots to their Marishes, shewing that the Syl­vae, and Paludes Caledonum, were the Scotorum Sylvae: though Strangers in those ancient times, could little di­stinguish Picts from Scots. And from which I further evince, that the Scots before the year 400, dwelt in in Scotland, as their own Country; else it had been impertinent and un­true to say, that the Scots were redu­ced to their own Marishes.

Having thus shown that the Scots were Caledonians: It clearly follows, that all the ancient Authors who write of the Caledonii, prove the Antiquity of the Scots; and there­fore Valerius Flaccus proves our An­tiquity, who writing to Domitian, in praise of his Father Vespasian, who was known to have made War with us about the year 70 after Christ, says,

[Page 78] And Lib. 10. Epig. 44. Martial, who liv'd also in Domitian's time, says,

Next to these I cite Tacitus, who in the Life of Agricola, brings in that famous Galgacus, who fought with the Romans, near to the Gram­pian Hills. And that he was a Sco­tish King, or Leader, is confirm'd from Comment. ad vitam A­gricolae. Lipsius, who calls him Gal­gacus Scotus. This is also confirm'd by the exact and noble French Ma­nuscript foresaid; which says, that Dardan was chosen, because Galdus was not of Age: Alluding to our old Law, appointing that the im­mediate Heir of the Crown, being by his Infancy unable to govern, the Government should in that case be devolved upon the next, who was able to govern: which Law was so ancient, that it is said to be enacted immediately upon the Death of Fergus the First. And by Ber­gier, [Page 79] afterwards the King's Advocate of France, who in his learn'd Hi­story of the High-ways of Rome, Lib. 1. cap. 10. numb. 9. Prince des Ca­ledoniens. ou Es­cossois.calls him Prince of the Caledo­nians, or the Scots. And to what better Judges can we appeal, in a matter concerning Roman Antiqui­ties, and the sense of a Roman Au­thor, than to those two, who are the most famous of all the Roman Antiquaries: the one having writ­ten a Book concerning the Roman Greatness, Petruccio Vbaldini, also in descritt. de­la Scotia, p. 4. & 5. asserts the Scots to be Ca­ledonians. and the other concerning the Magnificence of the Romans in their High-ways. Nor could he be an Irish King; for what had an Irish King to do with an Army in the midst of Scotland, and against the Romans, with whom no Irish King ever fought. And that he was no Britain, is clear from the Speech he made to his Souldiers, telling them that they had never been conquer'd, servitutis expertes, & nullae ultra terrae. Nor can any thing agree better with our being still call'd one of the two uncon­quer'd Nations, by Gildas, Beda, and others. This is yet further clear'd by another Passage in this [Page 80] same Life of Agricola; wherein Tit. vit. A­gric. c. 22. Tertius expedi­tionis annus no­vas gentes ape­ruit: vastatis usque ad Tuam (aestuarit nomen est) nationibus Agricola in fi­nes Horestorum exercitum dedu­cit: ibi accep­tis obsidibus praefecto Classis [...] Bri­tanniam praece­pit, &c. Tacitus says, The third Year of the War discovered new Nations, which Agricola conquer'd, even to the Ri­ver Tay. And after this he adds, Agricola having beat Galgacus near to the Grampian Hills, brought back the Roman Army to the Borders of the Horesti; and having received Hostages from them, he ordered the Commander of the Roman Fleet to sail about the Isle. From which I deduce, first, that Galgacus was no Britan: For Tacitus says, that the third Year open­ed new Nations: whereas Agricola knew the Britans before; and these must have been the Scots and Picts: for they could not be any other, be­ing beyond the River Tay. And Galgacus could be no Pictish King; for we have a Manuscript, bearing all the Names of the Pictish Kings. 2. From this passage it is clear, that Cambden does err grosly, in making the Horesti to be a People in Eskdale, which is a Scotish Country on the Borders of England. For (beside that all Authors agree, that they are known to be the Inhabitants of An­gus, and Merns) it is here demon­strated [Page 81] by Tacitus, that after the Ro­mans past Forth, they came to Tay, (which is known to be the Marches or Boundary of Angus) and from thence they marched to the Grampian Hills, where they fought with Galga­cus: And from which he return'd to the Borders of the Horesti, where finding the Fleet in the Frith of Tay, where he had left it, he Embarqu'd the Hostages, and sent the Fleet back to that part of Britain whence they came. And how could all this be in Eskdale? That being very remote from the place of Battel; and Eskdale an in­land Country, very remote from all Sea. 3. Tacitus writing of us, un­der the name of Caledonians, menti­ons the Marishes of those who fought, which were appropriated to us by Eumenius and Pacatius, as I former­ly observ'd. By all which we may observe, how little English Writers are to be credited, when they write upon design to lessen our Country, or magnify their own. And all this is confirm'd by the lear­ned Lex. Geo­graph. verb. Horresti. Ferrarius a stranger. And to this I may add, that we have to this [Page 82] day, a Barony, call'd Galdgirth, or the Girth of Galdus; and ten great Stones in Galloway, called King Galdus's Monument: Marks of Anti­quity far preferable to any Manu­script; as the testimony or consent of a whole Nation, is to that of one privat Person. Two of which Argu­ments are us'd by Chambers, in the Life of Galdus: and he had seen Verimund, and our old Manuscripts: And should he not then be our King Galdus, who reigned at that time, and who (as all our Histo­ries relate) fought against the Ro­mans, in this place, which was within the Scotish Territories? SENEC A.

The third Citation, shall be from Seneca; and is a clear testimony for us in the judgment of the great Scalig. ad lib. 4. Tibul. ad. Messal. And in his Notes on Eu­sebius ad An­num MMLX, Where there is a most lear­ned and full proof of our Antiquity, too long to be in­serted here, and too learn'd to be answered by any Ad­versary. Sca­liger.

[Page 83] Ovid. Salmas [...] in Solin.To which Cambden answers, That for Scoto-Brigantes, we should read Scuta-Brigantes. But this is very ridiculous; for we read, that the Picts were call'd Picti, for painting their Bodies; but never for painting their Shields. I know likewise, that Hadrianus Iunius reads Cute-Brigantes; but this would be ill verse: for the first syllable in Cute, is by it's own nature, short; but according to this reading it would be long. I might to this add that Answer made by Florus, the Poet, to Adrian in Spartianus.

For why should we read, Scythicas? since Adrian was never in Scythia; but did fight against the Scots: and caus'd make the vallum Adriani.

2. Why should not rather Scotia, than Scythia be joyn'd to Britannia? as Cap. p. 723. de primord. Vsher argues most justly upon the like occasion. 3. the Pruinae Scoti­cae were famous about that time: for Claudian hath, [Page 84] ‘ C. 16. p. 728. Ille Caledoniis posuit qui castra pruinis.’

And Claudian does so expresly and so frequently speak of the Scots as setled here, and describes them to be those People, who constantly fought against the Romans, with the Picts; that the citing him against us, may con­vince the Reader, that our Adversa­ries are not serious. Which will appear when I have cited and illu­strated him.

In his Panegyrick, upon the third consulat. of Honorius, he comple­ments him upon the victory of his Gandfather Theodosius, who be­hov'd to come into Britain long before the Year 382, wherein The­odosius his Father was chosen Empe­rour.

And in the fourth Consulat of the same Honorius.

And de bello Getico, he speaks of the Roman Legion that return'd from fighting with the Picts, and us; (of which Bed. Eccles. Hist. l. 1. c. 12. Beda makes express mention.)

That all this is applicable to us, is clear: because, 1. We had War with the Romans, and the Irish had not. And all these Verses in Claudi­an, are spoke to magnify the Ro­man [Page 86] man Conquest. 2. Since we have prov'd, by other Authors, that the Scots were setled here, it is proper and suitable to common sense, to apply the same to us only, as be­ing the only Persons concern'd in those Battels; and to the Isle, in which it is known that the same were fought. And these Passages are attributed to us by Selden, l. 2. c. 8. Mar. Claus.

3. Have the Irish made any men­tion of this War, in any of their Histories? and consequently, though Scotia had been a common Name to Scotland and Ireland in those days; yet the Circumstances of the Action, related by the Poet, determine which of the two is here meant.

This is yet further clear from the Panegyrick of Sidonius Appollinaris.

As to which, all that cambden (much better acquainted with ci­ting, [Page 87] than reasoning) can answer; is, 1. That the Poet here wrote a Com­plement according to the vulgar Opi­nion of his own Times, which cannot be true, (as he says) because the Saxons were not then come to Bri­tain. But he should have consi­dered, that, 1. If this was the Opi­nion in Sidonius's Age, who liv'd Anno 480, Gesner in verb. Sidonius. as Gesner affirms, which was very near to Claudian's Time, who liv'd in 497, as the Bishop of Pag. 8. St. Asaph calculates: we must conclude, that it is the rather to be believ'd, that then the Scots liv'd here, for that is not inconsistent with History as the other is, and so should be believ'd, though the other be not. 2. There were Saxons living then in Zetland or Orknes, tho they were not setled in Britain; as is clear by Claudian himself, who says— ‘Maduerunt Saxone fuso Orcades.’

And whereas it is said, that ‘—Flevit glacialis Ierne,’

Does make the same applicable to Ire­land, [Page 88] since Ierna is call'd Ireland. To this it is answered, that, 1. It is clear, that there is a Country in Scotland, call'd Ierna, near to which the Ro­mans had a noble Camp, and where­of the Vestiges are very remarkable to this day; and in which, there are Stones found with Roman In­scriptions, designing the Stations of the Legions. And certainly it is more proper to say, the loss was lamented in that Country where the Battel was fought, than in that Kingdom where the Romans never fought any. And why did the Po­et join Ierna in the same lamenta­tion with Caledonia? if he had not design'd by it, to express Ierna, as a part of our Scotland. And this is more proper, than to make the Poet join part of one, to another different, and remote Kingdom. As also Starthern in Scotland, is in­deed a place, where the Frost is strong, and continues long, as be­ing very near the Hills. But Ire­land was known to be, and is yet a Country much freer from Storms and Ice; and was believ'd by the Ancients to be so, as is most clear [Page 89] by Lib. 1. cap. 1. Beda. 2. Though the Poet had understood Ireland, by Ierne; yet it does not follow, that because Ireland lamented the loss of the Scots who were kill'd here; that therefore the Scots that were kill'd, were not the Scots that were plan­ted in Scotland: since certainly, Ire­land could not but have lamented even the death of Scots, who were setled here; as Scotland, and as the Scots here did lament very much the death of the Scots who were kill'd in Ireland in the late Massacre. And as the Bishop himself argues in the Case of the Panegyrick above­cited, I may far more justly argue here, that this sense agrees better with the Poet's noble flight, who makes the loss that the Scots sustained to be so great, that it was lamented even in Ireland. Selden also, l. 2. c. 8. Mar. Claus. applys this to us, and not to the Irish. And these Verses in the same Author, design'd likewise to the praise of the same Theodosius,

Are only applicable to the Scotish Colony setled in Ireland. For he magnifies Theodosius, Grand-father to Honorius, for having pursued so far his Victory, that he beat the Nor­thern Seas with his bold Oars. Now, beside all the other Argu­ments formerly us'd, can it be said, that Theodosius's Souldiers e­ver went to Ireland? that Ireland lies North-west from Clyde, or Severus Wall? Whereas it is certain they were in Scotland; and it is ve­ry probable that they would follow the Scotish Colony into the North-west Isles, or over Clyde, where it's formerly prov'd the Scotish Planta­tion first setled.

The Third Testimony, shall be that of Lib. 1. cap. 1. Hegesippus de excidio Hie­rosol. 5. Cap. 15. Quid vobis cum victoribus universae terrae? quibus secreta Oceani, & ex­trema Indiae parent. Quid attexam Britannias interfuso mari toto orbe divisas, & à Romanis in orbem terrarum redactas. Tremit hos Scotia qua terris nihil debet. Hegisippus, where he brings in Ben-gorion disswading [Page 91] the Iews to fight against the Romans, the Conquerors of all the Earth, whom the unsearchable Places of the Ocean, and the furthest places of India, obey. What shall I say of the Isles of Britain, divided from the rest of the World by Sea, and re­duc'd by the Romans to be a part of the World; who makes Scotland to tremble, which owes nothing to any part of the Earth? To which Camb­den answers, That this must be inter­preted of Ireland, because the words, Quae terris nihil debet, must be inter­preted, as if the Scotia here spoke of, were joyn'd to no other place; and that is only applicable to Ireland, and not to Scotland. But what a hard shift is he here driven to: for none can interpret, Quae terris nihil debet, in that sense, there being no­thing more different, than these two expressions, which is not joyn'd to the other Parts of the Earth, as Cambden would interpet it; and, which owes nothing to any part of the Earth, as the Author expresses it. There is nothing more ordinary, than for one who thinks he depends not upon a­nother, to say, I owe you nothing. [Page 92] And certainly it agrees much more with the Author's Intention, to inter­pret these words so, Scotland, which ow'd homage to no place, does tremble at the Roman Arms. 2. It cannot be said that ever the Romans did at­tack Ireland. And to clear this, beyond answer, in the same ha­rangue, cited out of Ben-gorion him­self by Vsher, P. 726, & 727. Ad quos cum ve­nisses dua exerci­tus Romani, op­posuerant se il [...]i, nec voluerunt ei subditi esse: Cum autem Reges Ro­manorum vene­runt, subegerunt eos ut servirent ipsis. Ben gorion says to the Iews, that when the General of the Nations only came, these Nations re­sisted them; but when the Roman Emperours themselves came, they sub­mitted to them. And I desire to know, if ever Ireland was invaded by the Romans? So that what is said in the harangue, is not applicable to the Scotia Hibernica, as they pretend; but to that Country wherein we now live. As also, by the same Ben-gorion, it is clear, that Nero be­ing discourag'd upon the rebellion of the Iews, and Vespasian comming to him, comforted him, by remem­bering him that some of his Captains had conquer'd all the Western World, France, Scotland, and the land of Tubal. And whereas, Vsher, to lessen this Authority, is forc'd to al­ledge, [Page 93] that Hegesippus's Works were spurious. This contradicts Vid. cap. 27. l. 4. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Eusebi­us, who makes him to have liv'd, Anno Christi 160. And tho Vsher contends, that both these Authors must be late, because Hegesippus, who only cites Ben-gorion, names Constantinople, which chang'd not the name of Bizantium till about the beginning of the 4th Century. Yet the Answer is easie, viz. That this being a Translation from the Greek, the Translator has us'd the name that was best known in his own Time. And the English, and other Nations have acknowledg'd this to be the Work of Hegesippus, and translate it as such. Vsher himself indeed is inclin'd to think, that this was the Work of St. Ambrose: but even that is sufficient for us, for not only is St. Ambrose himself older than the 503 Year, and so proves that our Country was before that time called Scotland; but St. Ambrose relating this Speech made in Vespasian's Time, must prove, that this Coun­try was call'd Scotland in Vespasi­an's Time, who was elected Emperour 72 Years after Christ.

[Page 94] Tertullian. Tertullian, who died in the Year 202, and so must have written some time before that, and could not have written of us as Christians, and a Nation, if we had not been so, for a considerable time: for Informati­ons did spread slowly in that Age, when there was so little Commerce, and at so great a distance, This great Doctor of the Primitive Church, writ­ing against the Jews, who he knew would examine the truth of the matter of Fact alledg'd against them, says, Tertul. l. ad­vers. Iudeos, c. 7. Et Britannorum Romanis in ac­cessa loca, Chri­sto vero subdita: which Baronius applys to us, Tom. 5. p. 537. St. Asaph. Pres. pag. 2. for the honour of the Christian Religion, which he was defending, That those Inhabitants of Britain, which could not be subdu'd by the Romans, yet willingly yielded to the Yoke of Christ. From which it is urg'd, that in Ter­tullian's Time, there were Nations in Britain which had never submitted to the Roman Yoke, but yet submitted to the Yoke of Christ. But so it is that could not be meant of the Bri­tains, for all the World knows, and the Bishop confesses, that long before that Time, they had submitted to the Romans. And therefore it is plain, that there were other Nati­ons in the Isle; and that could [Page 95] not be true, except the Scots, as well as the Picts, had been setled in the Isle at that Time. For a vagrant Company of Robbers, could not be call'd a Nation, or esteem'd a Church: And this Author writes of British Nations; we must there­fore have been a Nation and Church, as the rest were; and therefore, since they were setled, so must we have been. Nor can this be meant of the North and South Picts, though it were prov'd, that the Picts were distinguish'd into Northern and Southern. For these could no more be consider'd as different People, than the Northern and Sou­thern English can now be said to be different Nations. 2. That sense was not so much for the honour and extent of the Christian Religi­on: And the Jews might have lookt upon Tertullian as a Jugler, for mak­ing one Nation appear two. 3. Our sense agrees better with Beda, who asserts positively, that from Reudas's Time, the Scots made a third Nation in the Isle of Britain, with the Bri­tans and Picts. 4. Selden, l. 2. c. 8. confesses, that the Scoti Pictique, [Page 96] were the Gentes non subjacentes Ro­mano Imperio.

Ammianus l. 20 Consulatu vero Constantii de­cies terque Juli­ani in Britan­niis cum Scoto­rum Picto­rumque Genti­um ferarum ex­cursu rupta quie­te condicta loca limitibus vicina vastarentur, & implicaret formi­do provincias praeteritarum cladium congerie fessas. Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote about the Year 360, tells us, That the Scots and Picts harrased the Country. But the Bishop unjustly adds, that then they first harrassed it. But this cannot be, for Ammianus speaks of their Fear, as occasion'd by a Tract of bygon Defeats; and this he elegantly expresses by the words, congerie praeteritarum Cladium; which shews, that these he speaks of in the 360, were not the first of many overthrows that the Brittains had got from the Scots and Picts. And so our being here, must be much an­cienter than the 360; which agrees well with the word assueti in Eume­nius. And our having fix'd and known Limits, demonstrates to all who understand the Roman Anti­quities, that we were then a fix'd and setled Nation, in the same Island with the Roman Provinces of the Britans; the Sea, or any part of it, being never signified by their word Limes.

Lib. 2. ad Jo­vian. St. Ierome, in his Epistle to Iovian, cites Porphire, who liv'd in [Page 97] the third Century, under Dioclesian, and so above 200 Years before the 503. His words are, Neither Britain a Province fertil of Tyrants, and the Scotish Nation, and all the Barbarous Nations, dwelling around the Ocean, knew Moses, and the Prophets. By the Scotish Nations C. 16. p. 728. de Primord. Vsher under­stands not the Scythians, but the Scots, because they are in this place joyn'd to Britain: but tho both he, and the Bishop of St. Asaph would apply this citation to Ireland, yet this Gloss is most absurd; for by the former Argument, the word Scots should be apply'd to us, for we are join'd to Britain; but Ireland is no more join'd to Britain, than Scythia. And the same Ierome, in the next Citation, calls the Scots a Nation of Britain; where he says, Quid loquar de caeteris natio­nibus, cum ipse adolescentulis in Gallia, Scotos Gentem Britan­nicam humanis vesci carnibus. Vidi l. 2. ad Jov.That when he was young, he saw the Scots, a Nation of Britain, feed upon Mans Flesh. From which it is clear, that the Scots at that time dwelt in Britain, which agrees very well with Beda, who calls the Scots the third Britannick Nation. Pref. L. in Iren. And Sel­den calls the Scots and Picts, Gen­tes Britannicas, l. 2. c. 8. And this [Page 98] is further clear'd, by his asserting, that Pelagius was of a Scotish Race, in the Neighbour-head of Britain; which proves clearly, as the learn'd Tom. 5. p. 537. Baronius observes, that there were Scots then in Britain, who were Chri­stians, else how could they have been Pelagians? Nor can this eating Man's Flesh, be thought any just re­flection on the Nation; for certain­ly these had been some Rogues, who had fled out of the Nation, because they knew they would have been punish'd for this Crime. Nor can their eating Man's Flesh in France be charg'd on us, but on the French, where this is said to be so publickly done, that St. Ierome could have seen it; and there is no Historian that ever charg'd this on our Nation, nor any part of the Isle, even in our most barbarous Times. And if it had been any ways common, there would have been a Law made against it. And Boethius relates, that there was one mean Man guilty of it, who was thereupon ex­ecuted examplarly. And in what Nation are there not some Mon­sters?

[Page 99] Another of the Reverend Epiphanius in auchorato. P. 117. ad par. Britanni, Scoti, quorum insula est Britannia. Fa­thers of the Primitive Church, enu­merating the Nations, which were descended from Iaphet, mentions the Britons and Scots, whose Isle is Britain. This shews, that there were Scots living in Britain in Epi­phanius's Time, and so he proves not only our Antiquity, by his own Au­thority, but confirms and explains what was formerly urg'd from Ie­rome, in whose Time he liv'd, and to whom he wrote Letters.

Receptam par­tem insulae à cae­teris indomitis gentibus vallo distinguendam putavit. Orosius, who in Anno 417, says, That Severus thought fit to secure that part of the Isle which he had, by a Wall, from the other unconquered Nations. And that We, and the Picts were these unconquered Na­tions, appears from Cap. 5, & 12. Beda, where­in he describes those very Actions, in those very words. And all these Authors agreeing with Beda, and writing of the Times wherein themselves liv'd, are sufficient Te­stimonies, according to the Bi­shop's own strictest Rules. And they prove how unkind the Bishop is in lessening Beda's Testimony, when it makes for us; by saying, he spoke [Page 100] then according to the Times where­in these Actions happn'd: for we see, that they who wrote, and liv'd in the Time of those Actions, agree fully with him, as they speak clear­ly for us.

Having thus made plain the Anti­quity of our Kings and Nation from SECT. 6. Proofs from Reason. the Historians both within and with­out the Isle. I now proceed to clear these from the Principles of sound Reason: As to which, let us consider, That it being acknow­ledg'd by Vsher, and the Authors he cites, that Ireland was peopl'd by the Scots, before Iulius Caesar's Time; and by their own Authors, whom that Bishop cites, they are said to have been so anciently there, that we do not know how many Ages they possess'd that Isle before Iulius Caesar. And they being a very broody People, as all Northen Nations, and particularly they, and we are, could not but have multi­ply'd so exceedingly, as to need re­lief, and evacuation by Colonies. And it can never be pretended, that the Irish did settle any other Colo­ny [Page 101] save in Britain: though it be undenyable, that all those Northen Nations were very desirous and concern'd to extend, by Colonies, the Empire of their whole Nation, and thereby the Possession and Pro­perty of every particular Man in it. Nor do we ever read, that the Irish had any Wars with Strangers, whereby they might have either wanted Men to send into Foreign Colonies, or have been forc'd to keep them at home, for their own defence. Whether then are our Histories more probable, which make this Colony to have come over before Iulius Caesar? or the Bishop of St. Asaph's account, who makes us not to have settl'd here, till 503 Years after Christ. And tho I esteem the Irish, yet I must re­mark, that our humour differs so much from theirs, that it may from thence appear, that we stay'd not long amongst them, but that we came from thence very early.

2. By all the tract of the Roman Histories, as well as by Beda's, Gil­das's and ours, it is clear, that the Scots and Picts fought joyntly a­gainst [Page 102] the Romans in this Country which we now possess: That the Walls built by Adrian, and Severus, were built here, to defend them a­gainst them: That Complaints were made to the Romans by the Britons of them, and that Succours were crav'd against them: That the Saxons were call'd in, to defend the Britons, from the Scotish and Pictish Incursions: That they were call'd jointly, unconquer'd Nations. All which points prove, that they were equal in every thing; and why not then in their being equally settl'd here? And therefore, except it were clear­ly prov'd that the Scots were not settl'd and fix'd here, as the Picts were; and that there were Authors produc'd, who living in these Times, declar'd, that in the Year 503, the Scots were first call'd to defend the Picts, as the Saxons are clearly prov'd to have been call'd in, against the Scots, and Picts, in the Year 449, very near to the Year 503; which is said by the Bishop to be our Entry: It must be necessarily concluded, that the Scots were here at the time, wherein all these things are told of [Page 103] them joyntly, with the Picts.

The third Argument shall be, that it's undeniable, that the Scots and Picts were such constant and formi­dable Enemies, that the Romans, and Britans, who then possest the Sou­thern part of this Isle, were forc'd to build two Fences against them: The first betwixt Tyne and Solloway, which was call'd Adrian's Wall: And the second, by Severus, who having enlarg'd the Roman Conquest, built a second, betwixt Forth and Clyde, and called it by his own name. How then can it be imagin'd, that the Scots did not live on the other side of that Wall? for if they had liv'd in Ire­land, the Wall had not been neces­sary, or useful, against them. This common sense would declare to a Stranger, upon first reading the Story; and much more ought it to be believ'd, if we consider, that if the Scots came from Ireland, in Corroughs, as the Bishop of St. Asaph alledges, from Gildas; then they might have landed upon the Britons side of the Wall; nay, and which is more, they could not conveniently [Page 104] have landed on the other side, ex­cept they had gone too far about, and cross'd a very broad and dan­gerous Sea.

4. Tho People come once, or twice, from a Foreign Nation, by Sea, to rob and pillage, yet it is a­gainst sense to think, that for many hundreds of Years, the Irish would have come over, to make War a­gainst such powerful Enemies, and return once a Year. And it ap­pers clearly, that this was a con­stant War, from before Iulius Caesar's Time, for above 600 Years: and in those Ages, it is known, that there were not very convenient means fall'n upon, for transporting Men, much lesse Armies; they having only Corroughs, as the Bishop of St. Asaph himself acknowledges: And these are a miserable little kind of shapeless Boats, made of Leather, streatch upon Timber, as we find them, and the Irish Sea, describ'd by Pag. 352. Solinus, who liv'd near those Times, and writes, that Mare quod Iuvernam & Britanni­am interfluit, undosum & inquietum toto in anno, nisi aestivis pauculis die­bus, [Page 105] est navigabile: navigant autem viminiis alviis, quos circumdant am­bitu tergorum bubulorum. And how these could transport an Army every Year to fight against such power­ful Enemies as the Romans and Bri­tons? And how they could carry back in them the great Booty wor­thy to be fought for? especially over such broken Seas, that are yet terrible in the best Season, to the best of our Boats, and the stoutest of Seamen, is left to be considered by Men judicious, or disinterested in any measure: Especially, seeing they behov'd to return in the Win­ter-time, for it's presum'd, they fought all Summer; and even then, they had not the chusing of their own fair Weather, but had just rea­son to be afraid that they would be chas'd away, as Robbers usually are; and as the Bishop of St. Asaph asserts they often-times were. But as all this is absurd, and incredible, according to the Bishop of St. Asaph's Hypothesis; so it is most consistent with ours; in which we assert, that the Scots setled on the other side of Clyde, from which they might come [Page 106] every Year; which agrees also well with Beda's saying, That the Scots setled ad partem septentrionalem sinus Acluith, or Dumbriton; a narrow Sea, and call'd one part of the Mare Scoticum by the English Authors, and particularly by Pag. 16. desc. Brit. Holinshed, and In initio. Polidore, as by our Pag. 6. Major; and was so design'd in the forms of hold­ing Circuits, as is clear by the 4 Chap. of the Laws of King Malcom 2. and by 5th. Act P. 3. I. 2d. And since in the said Laws of Malcom 2. who reign'd Anno 1004. The Frith of Forth is call'd Mare Scotiae, the Sea of Scotland, and that is mention'd as a Law in old observance; it must be concluded, that this Country where we live, was call'd Scotland, long before the Year 1000, as Bishop Vsher asserts. For since Tacitus and Beda say, That we were inclos'd by that Sea, and the Wall, as in an Isle; it seems that this was call'd the Sea of Scotland then, it being our March at that time. Nor are these Friths improperly call'd Seas, being 40 miles broad in some places. And this also agrees with our being trans­marini, or on the other side of the [Page 107] Sea, (which are the words us'd in the said Statute) but not out of the Isle; and it is strange, that the Visi­goths should have setled in France and Spain; the Ostrogoths in Italy, shortly after they had made their inroads; and yet we should have re­turn'd yearly for above 600 Years, notwithstanding of the former diffi­culty.

4ly, The Scots coming over to this Isle, could not but know, that the southern Parts of it were very rich, and the People there very cowardly, even to admiration; as the Bishop of St. Asaph himself re­lates, from all their Historians: and there was place enough for a Colo­ny of them in this Isle, or else how could they have planted themselves after, when the Picts became more numerous; and both the Scots and the Picts had good reason to expect every Year new additions of Land: and it is probable, that our Ances­tors, being a Colony of a more sou­thern Nation, strangers in Ireland, and but lately setled there, left their confinement in the Irish Isle as soon as they could, to inlarge [Page 108] their Victories and Possessions in this larger one, which afforded greater Glory. How then can it be ima­gin'd, that they would not have setled a Colony here, which was far less dangerous, and more noble and advantageous, than to be con­stantly robbing for small Booty, to the danger of their Lives? But that they fought for Land, and not for Booty, is very clear; not only from the practice of others, but from Sa­bellicus, Aeneid. l. 9. c. 1. gliscere indies id malum au­gebatur duarum gentium audaciâ: ap­parebat (que) brevi totam insulam alienatam iri, nisi ejusmodi conatibus maturé ire­tur obviam.

5. How it is imaginable, that the Picts (finding themselves in so great danger from the Romans and Bri­tons, the one very considerable for their Valour, and the other for their great Numbers) would not have intreated the Scots to stay constantly with them? for tho they had been equal to their Enemies, when the Scots and they were together, yet they could not be but much more in­feriour to them, when the Scots left them once every Year.

[Page 109] 6. If the Irish had constantly sent in Auxiliaries to assist against the Romans, it is not to be believ'd but the Romans would have resent­ted this Injury against the Kingdom of Ireland; which they never did, except once, Buchan. p. 128. when the Irish gave the Scots Supplies, endeavouring to re-establish themselves after the ex­pulsion of Eugenius. And if this War had been carried on by the Kingdom of Ireland, and not by the Scots in Scotland; we had certainly heard, that the Kings of Ireland had been mention'd, both in the Roman, English, and our Histories: for it is not to be imagin'd, that so long, and so great Wars could have been carried on by the Subjects, without the consent of the King and King­dom.

7. If they never had been call'd in by the Picts, to stay as a Colo­ny, till the Saxons had beat the Britons, who had lately call'd them in to their Assistance: How is it imaginable to think, that the Picts would have call'd them in as Auxi­liaries at that time? having so late­ly [Page 110] seen, how dangerous Auxilia­ries might prove, especially consi­dering, that the Scots had been us'd many hundred Years to rob­bing, as the Bishop of St. Asaph would have us believe; and that they were part of a numerous near Nation, from whom they might ex­pect suddenly great Supply: or that they would have not only run this risque, but have divided with them their little Country; and yet not have employ'd their Assi­stance for the Ends for which they call'd them in. For the Bi­shop Pag. 37.tells us, that the Scots did no­thing for 100 Years after they were call'd in.

8. It cannot be deny'd, but that about the Year 792, Chambers par­ticularly, p. 9, & 96; also from p. 229 to the end of the Treatise. there was a League entred into betwixt Charles the Great, call'd Charle-Maigne King of France, and Emperor of the West, and Achaius King of Scotland, call'd by all the French Historians, the Famous Alliance. In which the King of Scotland did send over 4000 Men to the assistance of Charles the Great. And this is testified by [Page 111] Scotorum quoque reges sic habuit ad suam voluntatem, per suam munificentiam inclinatos, ut eum nunquam aliter quam dominum pronunciarent: extant epistolae ab iis ad eum missae, qui­bus hujusmodi affectus eorum erga illum judicatur. Aeginard. vita Caroli magni ad an­num 791. Aeginardus who wrote the History of those Times, and was Secreta­ry to Charles the Great; and who is cited by Vsher, at which time the King of Scotland sent o­ver very many famous learn'd Men, who foun­ded the incomparable U­niversity of Paris. All which is clear by Lib. 5. pag. 80. Aegi­nard. Secretary to Charle-maigne, maketh an enumera­tion of strange Princes, who imbrac'd the Amity of that puissant Monarch. The Em­perors of Constantinople, Per­sia; the Kings of India and Gallicia, with the Kings of Scotland. Favin. l. 5. p. 8. The Scots joyful of this Al­liance, as the most famous in Christendom, delegated for their Ambassours, Wil­liam Brother to their King Achatus, assisted with the counsel of four Persons, re­nown'd for Learning, Cle­mens, Ioannes, Rabanus, and Alcuinus, with 4000 Men of War sent to the succour of Charle-maigne. The two wor­thy Doctors who staid with Charle-maign at Paris and Pa­dua, were Iohn sirnam'd Sco­tus, a Scottish-man, both by Nation and Sirname, and Claudius Clemens. Fa­vin, in his Theatre of Ho­nour; and Paulus Aemilius in vita Caroli magni. Caeterum ut paulatim extin­gueret Saxonum nomen; honores magistratusque gentibus aliegiuis & in primis Scotis mandabat, quorum egregia fide virtute (que) utebatur. Paulus Aemi­lius in that King's Life. From which I raise two Arguments; 1. How can it be imagin'd, that if the Scots had not setled in a Colony till the 503, that their King could have been so famous, that in about 280 Years time, this small Colony, which the Bishop of St. Asaph represents to have been [Page 112] but pilfering barbarous Robbers, would have become so famous, that Charles the Great, then Emperor of all the Western World, would have entred into a League with them, especially since they had not for 100 Years af­ter their settlement, done any memo­rable Action, Pag. 34, & 38. as the Bishop of St. Asaph alledges? 2. If our Kings, and Nation, had only then Dalrieda, or the Kingdom of Argile, as the Bishop contends, how could this Prince of Argile (which is, after all improve­ment but an Earldom) have been worthy, not only of the Alliance of the great Emperor of the West, but to be able to send 4000 Men, especially having such dangerous Enemies at Home, and being himself but a Stranger, newly entred into a Foreign Island, and living in a small part of the Isle, with the Picts, the more powerful and ancient posses­sors. And that there were 4000 Men sent by virtue of that League, is clear, not only from Verimundus, out of whose 2d Book Chambers cites the whole League; Vid. Sansovino delle origine delle Case illustri d' Italici. p. 111. Edit. in 40. An. 1609. but by Sansovin an Italian, who writes the History of the Douglassii, or Scoti, whom he [Page 113] derives from William Douglas, who was Lieutenant at that Time to Prince William, Brother to Achaius. For which Sansovin cites another, viz. Vmberto Locato, more ancient than himself. Nella Cr [...]nica di piacenza. And this is so far ac­knowledg'd by the French Kings, that upon it we got very great Pri­vileges in France, and all the He­raulds in Europe acknowledg, that the double Tressure, was the Badg of that Alliance.

9. How can it be conceiv'd, that the Scots could in so short a time, after their Settlement, have been able, without any help, to extirpate the Picts, who must be presum'd to have been very strong, having been so long setled in this Isle; and having possest in effect all that we have now, benorth Forth, except the Shire of Argyle, if we believe the Bishop of St. Asaph.

Our Tradition is fortified, and the former Authorities cited by us, are clear'd, from the receiv'd Laws of our Nation; for first, all our Hi­stories bear, Lesl. pag. 80, Buchan. p. 97. That after King Fer­gus' s death, the Nobility finding his Son too young, and the Wars in which they [Page 114] were engaged very dangerous; they declared, that the Vncle should go­vern. Which Custom continu'd, till it occasion'd many bloody Ci­vil Wars betwixt the Uncles and Nephews: and therefore I [...]sl. p. 188. Buchan. p. 190. was justly abrogated by a Parliament holden by Kenneth the Third, which Ken­neth the Third reign'd, Anno 970. And it were very ridiculous to think, that since these Matters of Fact are true, viz. That there were bloody Civil Wars betwixt the Uncles and the Nephews; and that all this hath been much debated in posterior Parliaments, betwixt such as were for the Crown, and such as were for popular Elections; with­out ever controverting the Truth of the Matter of Fact; and long before we could have any apprehension of such a debate as this, and so that all this was a meer fiction, calculated for maintaining an Antiquity, which was never controverted.

It can as little be deny'd, that there were Laws relating to the merchetae mulierum; since many of our old Charters relate to them, and dis­charges of them are incorporated [Page 115] in our Charters; and which Styles are a part of our old and Traditional Law: These merchetae mulierum were thereafter abrogated by King Malcom Canmor's Laws, many hundred Years before the start­ing of this Debate: And that there were such Laws, is also acknow­ledged, not only by Baker, and others within the Isle, but even by Solinus and Ierome, &c. Lib. 2. ad Io­vianum, who seems to point at this, when he says, that Scoti nullas pro­prias habens uxoret. And that these Laws were made by Evenus the Third, who liv'd twelve Years before Christ, is a part of the same Traditi­on; and so cannot but be believ'd, since Laws are one of the probablest Means imaginable, Solin. cap. 25. de Britannia. for preserving Tradition. By the Laws likewise of Malcom the 2d, who reign'd in the Year 1004. The Frith of Forth is call'd Mare Scotiae, or the Sea of Scotland; which demonstrates, that before the Year 1000, our Country was call'd Scotia, or Scotland: and confirms and clears all that is said out of Beda; and as this designati­on of the Scotish Sea is look'd up­on there, as a thing very old and acknowledg'd; so it is continu'd in our Laws for many Ages, as is [Page 116] evident by K. I. 2d, his Laws above-cited.

I had resolved not to mention the Bishop's Objections, against our early Conversion: But I find it so clear, that we were converted to the Christian Faith before the Year 503, that there results this conclu­ding Argument from it, to prove that we were setled before that time. For if we were a Christian Nation converted here, before that time; it follows necessarily, that we were a Nation setled here before that Time: Since a Nation is said no where to be converted, but where it is setled, albeit some Persons of that Nation may be said to be conver­ted abroad. And that this part of the Isle which we now inhabit, and that people from which we are descended, were Christians before that time; seems to me very evident, from the former testimony of Tertul­lian, who wrote in the end of the second Century, to which I refer my Reader: And tho Tertullian liv'd a little before King Donald, yet the Answer is apparent, viz. that the Nations were ordinarily converted [Page 117] before the Kings or Magistrates. And it's indeed very probable that the Christians who were persecuted in the Southern Nations, would flee from their Persecutors, the Roman Empe­rours: And where could they seek refuge so reasonably, as in that Coun­try, and amongst that People which had never submitted to the Roman Empire? And it being acknowledg'd by the learn'd Vsher, and my Lord St. Asaph, that Britain was converted in the first Century; it is very rea­sonable to think, that the Christians, who had fled to this Isle, from the persecution of the Romans, would have very probably shelter'd them­selves here, where the Romans had no power: for though it be not prov'd, that the Roman Persecution reach'd to Britain so early; yet cer­tainly they who fled so far from the Persecution, would not think them­selves very secure within the Domi­nions of the Persecutors, and would have secured themselves by a few more Miles from so dreaded a danger. As also, it seems very improbable, that since the Christian Religion spread from Ierusalem to Britain in [Page 118] less than 100 Years, that it would have taken above 300 Years more, to reach so few Miles, as are betwixt the British part of the Isle, and Scot­land. It is also presumable that the Druids having been so prepared to receive Christianity, by their ex­cellent Principles of Philosophy, and their severity of Life formerly men­tioned, which did not contradict, but illuminate the Christian Doctrine, they would have both been easie to be converted them­selves, and ready to have converted their former Disciples, and the Peo­ple who admir'd them. I might here cite many Authors; but I fix upon Lib. 1. c. 13. Beda, who asserts positively, That Palladius was sent in the 8th Year of Theodosius junior; that is to say, in the 431 ad Scotos in Christum creden­tes, by Pope Caelestine, as their first Bishop: And that Beda wrote of us, as the Scots, is formerly prov'd; and this Mission of Palladius falling in the Tract and Series of the Acti­ons ascrib'd by Beda to us only, it is inconsistent with common Reason, that the things before and after, and the things related in the very Chap­ter, [Page 119] should be only applicable to us, and yet only this should not: albeit our own and Foreign Histo­ries apply the same to us. As to Fo­reign Histories, I shall only cite Ba­ronius, who, because he made Eccle­siastick History more his business than my Lord St. Asaph, and was more dis­interested, is therefore more to be be­liev'd as to this point.

This great Antiquary Tom. 5. edit. col. p. 586, & 589. num. 5. Qui igitur E­vangelium primo à victore Pon­tifice maxim [...] accepere, & à Celestino Papa primum Episco­pum, à quo sunt omnes pe [...]itus redditi Christia­ni, eate [...]us Chri­sti gratia pro [...]e­cere, qui oli [...] gentilitio ritu viventes, ob fe­riaos mores, ut portentum osten­tui erant humano generi praestan­tissi [...]i eveneri [...]t Christiani, &c. tells, That the Scots who had first receiv'd the Christian Faith from Pope Victor, and their first Bishop from Pope Cae­lestine, were become the chief of all Christians, from being amongst the most barbarous of all Nations, hav­ing formerly said, Num. 4. That all consent that Palladius was their first Bishop; and for which he cites Prosper, as he does Tertullian, Ierome, Sedulius, and others, for our being Christians under Pope Victor, saying, That Quia Victore Romano Pon­tifice, Scotos e­vangelium acce­pisse, majorum traditione scrip­sere, haud sunt refellendi. they are not to be refuted who assert our conversion under Pope Victor: but is most positive as to Palladius. And whereas it is Usher. p. 79 [...] de prim. pretended that Pro­sper's words are not applicable to us, since he says, that Palladius made [Page 120] the barbarous Island Christian; and our Scotland is not an Island.

To this it is answer'd, That our part of Britain was by Tacitus, and Beda, said to be reduc'd into an Island, by the Roman Wall from Sea to Sea: and Lib. 1. c. 12. ac Tusculani, &c. L. 4. c. 26. Eccl. Beda in other places of his History calls us therefore Islanders. Baronius also applies this to us, and so this gloss is to be preferr'd, to that unwarrantable gloss or reading cited by the Bishop of St. Asaph, from the copy of a Manuscript of Nenius, Missus est Palladius Episcopus, pri­mitus à Caelestino ad Scotos in Chri­stum convertendos: for that not on­ly differs from Beda, the far more learn'd, ancient, and credible Au­thor: But it is improbable to say, that a Bishop was sent to those, which were to be converted, seeing Con­version useth to be by Presbyters, and Missionars; and when the Church is gather'd, the Bishop is sent: and this gloss contradicts not only common sense, but Stat. 6. Ado Viennen, and Pag. 340. Marian, who both use Beda's own words, Ad Scotos in Christum credentes: and what is said of the [Page 121] conversion of the Scots and Picts by St. Ninian, Palladius, and Co­lumba, to make our conversion to be later than Tertullian made it, viz. in the 2d Century, must be inter­preted of our fuller and sounder conversion from Paganism, and Pe­lagianism; and of our being con­form'd to the Romish Church, and Rites, which the Authors of those Times considered as the only true conversion. But to make this our first conversion, were to contradict Tertullian, Ierome, the learn'd Baro­nius, as well as all our Histores. And the Edit. Basil. 1624. 2d. Cent. p. 1. Magdeburgian Centuriators do positively agree with Baronius, and our History, in this our Antiquity: and so having for us the greatest Ecclesiastick Antiquaries, both Prote­stant and Papist, we need not con­descend upon particular Authors: these being the Standards of Eccle­siastick History to the Professors of both Religions: and it is strange after all this, that a Church-man should so positively contradict, what the Antiquaries of both Churches have so positively asserted; tho if there had been any thing, wherein they [Page 122] could have contradicted one ano­ther, they would certainly have dif­fer'd.

That Donald then was our first Christian King, in Anno 203, and Palladius our first Bishop, in Anno 431, seems most fully prov'd: for these being Matters of Fact, may be prov'd by Witnesses; and who are better Witnesses, than the many Historians of the Country where the things were transacted; espe­cially since these were Matters of great importance, and Notoriety; which the Monasteries, whose Faith is followed by our Historians, could not but know best of all others, and in which they durst not cheat or forge, because the Annals of other Churches would have contradicted them, whereas they are confirm'd by them; and these things fell out, when we had the help of Letters, and are agreeable to the sound Rea­sons above-related: Tho the con­version of a Kingdom be a matter that could not be unknown, and no other King but Donald was ever recorded to have been the first Christian King here.

[Page 123] That Palladius was sent to the Scots in Britain, and not to the Scots in Ireland, appears further from these undeniable matters of Fact; viz. That Pope Caelestine did ordain, and send Palladius, in Anno 431: That the same Pope Caelestine sent St. Pa­trick to Ireland: That St. Patrick's Mission must have been before the 6th of April 432, is also clear, be­cause Prosper tells, that Caelestine died that Year. And the Roman Pontifical tells, it was on the 6th of April that Year. From all which, the Bishop did see that Palladius's mission must have been to the Scots in Scotland; else Palladius had been first Bishop of Ireland, and St. Patrick needed not have been sent into Ire­land, since Palladius was sent there but the Year before. To reconcile which real Contradictions, the Bp of St. A­saph makes up a laborious Hypothesis, and say's, that Palladius was indeed in Ireland, but finding he could not succeed, he was upon his return to Rome, but died in, or near the bounds of the Picts, the 15th of De­cember, 431. So that St. Patrick, who liv'd in Britain, could not but [Page 124] have known his death, and had time enough to go to Rome, and be ordain'd Bishop for Ireland, and go to that Kingdom, and there finish their Conversion, which Palladius had only begun: and so St. Patrick was call'd the first Bi­shop. All this Hypothesis is almost impossible, though good Palladius had sooner, and deeplier despair'd, than a Saint should have done, espe­cially in the Conversion of a whole Nation: and though both had post­ed faster for a Benefice, than Holy-Church-men did in those Primitive Times. Yet all this is founded up­on Palladius's having died Decemb. 15. 431. And the only proofs pro­duc'd for this by my Lord St. Asaph, is Baleus de 14. scrip. 6. near the end; and yet in that same Citation it is positively said, that Palladius was sent to Scotland, and the particular Scotish King is nam'd; and Baleus adds, That Palladius claruit Anno vir­ginei partus, 434; he flourish'd in the Year 434, and so he died not in the 431. And not content with this, Ba­leus goes on, telling, that post multos pios tandem sudores & religiosa exer­citia [Page 125] in Fordono vico Merniae foeli­cem hujus vitae sortius est exitum. Which is in our Scotland, and in the North part thereof, very far out of the Road from Ireland to Rome; and where we have St. Pa­dies Church and Fair; and with us he is nam'd our first Bishop to this day: but was never nam'd an Irish Bishop, until the Bishop of St. Asaph made him by a strange word first, in omination of success, as he says, tho not he, but St. Patrick had this success. If then he died not so soon, and if the time of his death is not prov'd, why might he not have baptiz'd Tarvanus? And why should our Boethius be hector'd for saying, that Palladius baptiz'd Tarvan? Yet I impute not this to my Lord St. Asaph's mistake or ignorance; but it is an elaborate con­trivance, to divert all the unanswera­ble Authorities, proving that Palladi­us was sent to us in Scotland, in the Year 431, and so before the Year 503; in which my Lord St. Asaph says we setled first in Britain. I shall con­clude this concerning Palladius, with the suffrage of Dr. Hammond, a learn'd and Episcopal English Divine, [Page 126] Pag. 162.who in his vindication of the disser­tations concerning Episcopacy, recon­ciling the seeming Differences be­tween Beda, who asserts, that Palla­dius was sent to the Scots believing in Christ: And Prosper, who speaking of the same Mission, says, That Pal­ladius made also the Barbarous Island Christian; lays down these three Conclusions; 1. That Christianity was planted in Scotland, before Cae­lestine's Time, deriv'd to them most probably from their Neighbour Bri­tons here, with whom they are known to have agreed in the keeping of Easter, contrary to the Custom of the Roman Church, as Lib. 3. Beda says. 2. That this Plantation was very im­perfect, differing little from Barba­rism, and so reputed by Prosper, till the coming of Bishop Palladius among them. 3. That even after that, they retain'd the use of Easter, con­trary to the Roman custome, which still refers to some rude conversion of theirs before Palladius; and so it is evident, that in the learn'd Do­ctor's opinion, the Scotland to which Palladius was sent, was ours; and that we were Christians before his [Page 127] coming, tho rude and barbarous. The Bishop of St. Asaph having thus spirited from us, into Ireland, Pal­ladius our first Bishop, he proceeds to translate Amphibalus our first Churchman upon Record, unto a Shag-Cloak; designing likewise thereby to prove, that Boethius our Historian is not to be credited, be­cause he follow'd their fabulous Ief­frey: Who finding that St. Alban had, to save his pious Guest, taken the holy Man's Habit, to the end he might be martyr'd for him; and as Beda expresses it, Caracalla ejus indu­tus; Ieffrey concludes, as my Lord St. Asaph alledges, that the Vestiment was Amphibalus; and Ieffrey having made the Cloak a Man, Boetius made him a Bishop of the Isle of Man: and so this Cloak was fitly ordain'd to be a proper Bishop for the Chapter of the Culdees: But this is ludere in sa­cris, and to expose Episcopacy it self upon the Stage. In answer to which, I shall only offer these few thoughts, First, What Interest had Ieffrey (who was a Briton) to oblige the Scots, or the Isle of Man, in making so horrid a lye? 2. It is against sense, [Page 128] to think that any Man, much less a Scholar, could have been so gross, as to take a Shag Cloak for a Bishop. 3. If the Shag Cloak had been mista­ken for the name of a Man, he should have been call'd Caracalla, and not Amphibalus; for the Legend being written in Latin, Ieffrey had certain­ly chosen the word Caracalla, be­cause that was the Latin word, and was the word used by Beda, and be­cause there was a Roman Emperor truly of that name, before Beda and Ieffrey's Time. 4. Beda relating to that passage, tells us, that in the Dio­clesian Persecution, St. Alban, Aron, Iulius, and many others suffer'd: And why might not Amphibalus be one of these many that suffer'd? And why ought Boethius to have been tax'd, for mentioning Amphibalus, since this was done long before him, by a multitude of English Writers, cited by Bishop Vsher, who deriv'd his birth from Greece, and describes the particular Actions of his Life, and his Martyrdom; with which al­so the modern English Writers agree, as Pag. 28, & 58. Baleus, Holinshed, Speed, all which English, and thousands of [Page 129] other Testimonies do far weigh down Bishop Vsher's Conjectures, that Amphibalus was not a Man, but a Vestiment, from the silence of Gildas, Beda, the Martyrologies and Breviaries of Salisbury, and Ieffrey, who do not mention him: for Gildas could not mention him, writing concerning the Conquest, and Destruction of Britain; Be­da tells the Passage relative to St. Al­ban; and albeit he names him not in the Dioclesian Persecution, yet he tells, that many more suffer'd than the three he names. We have not seen the Martyrologies, and Brevia­ries, nor does it import whether they mention him or not; and it is not so much to be wondered at, that some English Writers do not men­tion him, as that he is mention'd by so many, seeing he was a Greek, and a Bishop in the remote Isles of Bri­tain, and in all likelihood would have been buried under silence, had it not been for that Passage with St. Alban.

My last Argument for confirm­ing our History, shall be, that the best Critiques, Historians, and An­tiquaries [Page 130] of other Nations, who had occasion to mention our Histories, and particularly the great Baronius, Scaliger, Salmasius, Lipsius, Carolus Sigonius, Favinus, Selden, and o­thers of the first Rank, (too many to be nam'd) have passionately de­fended our Antiquity, and not on­ly sustain'd, but prais'd our Histories: and so the Arguments and Grounds whereupon I have proceeded, are already asserted by the best Judges, and that too after Luddus publish'd his Objections against the same, and almost the very same Objections which are now urg'd, and which are treated with great contempt by Pag. in Eu­seb. Scaliger. Since then there is no­thing now urg'd, that could have esca­ped the observation of these learn'd and curious Authors, who could not but have discover'd, as soon as the Bi­shop of St. Asaph, that our Histori­ans did not mention any Warrants which were written in the Time, or did contradict the Roman History or one another. I admire why now these our Histories should be controver­ted. And tho something might be pretended, if my Lord St. Asaph did [Page 131] in this Book, produce Manuscripts unknown to those learn'd Criticks; yet could they have been so blind and ignorant (especially in that subtile and laborious Age, wherein all Men were by a noble emulation contending, who should discover most) as not to have seen defects? which if they had been real, they had been obvious. It is also very remarkable, that since all Nations are emulous of one another in Mat­ters of Antiquity; yet they, by yielding to ours, have thereby ac­knowledg'd, that ours was beyond all debate; and to this day, none controvert it, (notwithstanding of all the pains taken by Luddus, Camb­den, and Vsher) further than to gratify their own Country. And therefore, as Cicero argues, that the Romans were the bravest, because every Nation commended them next to their own: I may contend, that we are the most ancient, because eve­ry Nation confesses us to be next to themselves in Antiquity. I shall cite, for confirming this, some few Instances. Saxo Gram. Swaningius, Albertus Krantzius, own our Name [Page 132] and Nation to have been before Christ, though after the Danes. Me­zeray shortly after Pharamond: and my Lord St. Asaph himself, who brings us in but 50 Years after the English.

Since it is probable that the Bishop of St. Asaph and I will not agree well in the decision of this Debate; were it not just that we should both rest in the decision of learn'd Strangers, who understood Antiquities exactly, these being the subject Matter of our Controversy? And where can we find more qualified Judges than those great Antiquaries whom I have named? But yet to shew how much I trust to the strength of that Truth which I assert, I dare appeal to Sel­den, that English-man, who was so affectionate to his Country, and that Antiquary who understood best of all Mankind the Antiquities of his own Nation, and even to him also in his Mare Clausum, written for the Defence and Glory of his Country; who, lib. 2. cap. 8. Maris Clausi, has these words, speaking of those fa­mous Lines in Claudian, to the praise of Stilicho,

‘As the Palmes, and the River Tagus were peculiar to Spain, as the Ears of Corn and Ivory to Africa; so he would have it understood, that the Province of Britain had the Sea of the same name peculiar there­to. But yet it is to be conceiv'd, that the Dominion of the Romans was so limited in this Sea, accord­ing to their possession of the Shore, that they had little power in that part of the British Sea, which bor­dered upon the Shores of those Bri­tish Nations who were not under their Obedience. This is to be taken chiefly of the Irish Sea, and the rest that lies North-west; for when the Roman Empire began to decline, not only in Ireland, but in the Isle of Man also, and the other Isles of the Western Sea, and a great portion of the more Nor­therly parts of Britain was possess'd [Page 134] by the Scots and Picts, so that we have sufficient ground to conceive, that they also had an ancient Do­minion of their own in the neigh­bouring Sea.’

From which Passage I argue thus,

1. That Selden consider'd the Scots and Picts, as Nations not subject to the Romans; Gentes iis (viz. Ro­manis) minime subjacentes, No manner of way subject to the Romans; and looks on us as the most conside­rable of these two Nations: for the words run, A Scotis, tenebatur Pi­ctisque; and very justly, for we were able to defend them while they were just to us, and to ex­tirpate them when they became Enemies.

2. This great Antiquary asserts, that the Scots and Picts possest not only in Stilicho's Time, who was Guardian to Honorius, and so liv'd about Anno 400, a great portion of the Northern part of Britain, as well as the Isle of Man, and the rest of the Western Isles; and conse­quently if we possest them then, it cannot be said that we were only [Page 135] here by way of incursion, till the Year 500; or were confin'd to Ar­gile, till after the Year 500, as my Lord St. Asaph contends.

3. That we were not only possest then, but that we had avitum Do­minium, ancient Dominion, and had right prisco jure; and nothing is so inconsistent with the being Proprie­tors, as to be Robbers, coming only by way of Incursion; and if we had the Dominion of our Seas, jure prisco, and per Dominium avitum; we were certainly ancient Possessors before the Year 400, and so must have been not only far older than the Year 500, but even to have been prisci incolae, as Beda (l. 1. c. 1.) says, before the Romans entred this Isle, and so before Christ.

Selden also, in the transition from that 2d to the 3d Chapter, tells, af­ter that he had spoke of the Scots Dominion of their own Sea, that he will treat of the succeeding Ages, and so proceeds to the Saxons, which de­monstrates, that we were setled here before the Saxons, though my Lord St. Asaph makes their settlement here more ancient than ours. And in this [Page 136] Beda agrees with Selden, but both contradict the Bishop. And lastly, this passage clears, that the Testimonies, not only of Claudian concerning Ierna, but even of Tertullian, when speaking of the Inhabitants of Britain not conquer'd by the Romans, and of Ierom speaking of the Britannick Nations, are only applicable to us: And therefore I hope my Lord St. A­saph will not take it ill, if we, in a Matter of Antiquity, prefer an im­partial Antiquary, to an interested Divine, as I would not be offended, if the Bishop of St. Asaph were pre­ferr'd to me in a Theological Contro­versy.

The first general Objection against our Histories, SECT. 7. is, Answers to the Bishop's Ob­jections. that they were not written by those who lived in the Time, but more than 1400 Years after the things happened, of which they wrote. And it were strange, that if Gild [...]s, who liv'd 500 Years before the eldest of them, could find no suf­ficient Instructions, save from Fo­reigners, that our Historians should have found sufficient Warrants for a History after so long a time.

[Page 137] To which my Answer is, That our Histories giving only an account of one Nation, it was easier to find the true and sincere Tradition as to us, than it was in other Nations, where the Conquerors were not concern'd to preserve the Traditions and Re­cords: and though I have made it very probable, that this Isle had the use of Letters before, or at least soon after we settl'd in it, and so might have preserv'd the Story. Yet al­beit our History were only found­ed on Tradition, until about 600 Years after Christ, before which the Monastery of Iona or Icolm-kill was founded, that Tradition might have been sufficiently preserv'd, for so few Generations, by the means and me­thods that I have formerly conde­scended upon. Nor can I see, how the Origin of a Nation could not have been preserv'd by those who were of it, or how, being establish­ed it could have vanished when People became more polite and cu­rious. And after the Year 600, I have prov'd, that our Historians might have been, and were sufficiently warranted in what they have said, [Page 138] by old Manuscripts, and Records: nor is there any thing urg'd in this Objection against us, but what might as unanswerably be urg'd against the Greek and Latin Historians. A receiv'd History cannot be over­turn'd, from what I have formerly represented, without Arguments, which necessarily conclude that the History impugn'd must be false; which cannot be alledg'd here, where the Warrants of the History contro­verted, not only might have been, but probably were true; and are so far from contradicting other Hi­stories, that they are confirm'd by them.

I desire also to know, what old Manuscripts and Records Luddus, the Antiquary so far preferr'd to ours, had for proving, that much elder Succession of History from Brutus to his own Time: And whereas St. Asaph says, that Buchannan should not have tax'd Luddus for deriving the Britons from Brutus, since he own'd a Succession of our Kings from Fergus, there being as few Do­cuments to support the one, as the other.

[Page 139] To this my Answer is, That there have been very solid grounds brought for sustaining the one, which cannot be alledg'd for the other: and ours are adminiculated by the Roman History, whereas theirs is inconsistent with it: for it is pal­pably inconsistent with the Roman History, to say, that Brutus was the Son of Ascanius whom he kill'd, for which being banish'd from Italy, he came over to Britain: and that Bri­tain was govern'd by Consuls: which should rather be laugh'd at, than confuted.

The Bishop is most unjust to us, in asserting, that we have no Author of our own before Fordon; and that no Author mentions our Anti­quity, but such as have follow'd Fordon, who wrote about 300 Years ago. For Fordon cites his Vouch­ers, many of which are extant, and those who are lost, are prov'd to have been extant. Within the Isle we could have no Authors till there were Writers, and Gildas and Beda, the eldest in the Isle, prove our An­tiquity. Without the Isle none could know us, being so remote, but ei­ther [Page 140] by the Wars they had with us, or the Christianity that was com­mon to them and us. As to our Wars, all the Roman Authors above-related speak of us; Orosius about the Year 417. Claudian 397. Ammi­anus before the Year 360. Beda and Eumenius speak of us, as before Iu­lius Caesar, as hath been prov'd. All which we have collaterally suppor­ted, by a gradation of Ecclesiastick Historians abroad, and all our own Historians at home. Beda brings us to Reutherus, who was the 6th King from Fergus the first: and he living within 150 Years of Fergus, this short step may be trusted to Tradition, though we had wanted the help of the Druids, and Phaenician Let­ters: for a Father might have in­form'd his Son of so near a Time; nor was this worthy of a fiction. And I may modestly say of the foregoing Citations from forraign Authors, that if they be not strong enough to overturn the Bishop's Hypothesis, yet they are at least as strong as those produc'd by Iosephus in defence of the Jewish History; and yet all the learn'd World has acquiesc'd in them. [Page 141] Nor is there any thing to be con­cluded from the silence of Adamna­nus, and Marianus, the eldest of our Historians: though, as the Bishop alleadges, they had certainly menti­on'd our Antiquitiy, if they had known it. For Adamnanus wrote no History save of Columba; and Marianus going to Germany, when he was very young, could know little of us, and mentions only the three Kings of Scotland, in whose time he liv'd: and so if this Argument prov'd any thing, it would prove too much. For certainly we had Kings before those three, whom he mentions; and these negative Arguments are of no moment in Matters of History, and are justly reprobated by the learned Scaliger, in his Notes on Eusebius, and by De Hist. La [...]. p. 4. Vos­sius.

The second Objection is, That our Historians contradict one ano­ther concerning the Origin of the Picts; which ought to lessen their credit. But to this it is answered, That our Historians were not con­cern'd to consider the Origin of the Picts as they were to consider their [Page 142] own. And this Objection subsumes not what is true in Matter of Fact. For our Historians generally agree in the Origin of the Picts, whom all of them make to be Scythians: and though Fordon relates three dif­ferent accounts of them, yet he does not settle upon any thing that is different from our other Historians Cap. 30, & 37. [...] 1.as is fully to be seen.

The third Objection is, That our Historians are contradicted by our own Antecessors; for our Histori­ans assert that King Donald the first was our first Christian King; where­as in our Apology against Edward the first of England, about the Year 1300, we assert the Tradition of a wonderful Victory obtain'd by our King Hungus, against the Saxons, by the Relicts of St. Andrew the Apostle, by virtue whereof the Scots first receiv'd the Faith of Christ.

To which it is shortly answer'd, that every Contradiction does not overturn the Truth of a whole Histo­ry; otherwise we need not be trou­bled to give any other answer to the Bishop's own Book: nor is this pretended to be a Contradiction a­mongst [Page 143] our Historians, for they all agree, that King Donald was our first Christian King; but in that Apo­logy, which is alledg'd to contra­dict our Histories, our Predecessors design'd, as most Pleaders do (and this Eloquent Author does in his Book) to gain their Point at any rate. For understanding whereof, it is fit to know, that King Edward the first, having upon the Compe­tition betwixt Bruce and Baliol, interpos'd with design to make him­self Lord Paramount of Scotland; he caus'd his Parliament write to the Pope, to whom afterwards he wrote himself; in which Letter of his, it is pretended, that we were Vassals to England, as descended from Al­banactus the second Son to Brutus. 2. Because several of our Kings had become Vassals to his Predecessors, in the Times of the British, Saxon, and Norman Kings. To which we answer in our Apology, That without debating, whether the first Inhabi­tants of the Isle were descended from Albanactus, or his Albanians, it is asserted, that we came from Spain by Ireland, and conquer'd [Page 144] the first Inhabitans (for which we cite Bed. Ec. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 1. Beda) and so, tho they had been Vassals, we were free; not being lyable to the Conditions of the People we con­quer'd; and as such, fought con­stantly against the Britons, who were forc'd to build Severus's Wall against us. And as to any homage made by our Kings, it was either for the Three Northen Countries of Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Nor­thumberland, confirm'd to us by the Britons, to defend them against the Saxons; and thereafter again St. Asaph, p. 45. con­firm'd by both Saxons and Britons to assist them against the Danes. Or was extorted by force, from one or two young Captive Kings; upon which heads the Popes had declar'd us free: which Bulls, Edward himself had robb'd unjustly out of our Treasure, with other Records, which he could not deny: but to cajole the Pope their Judg, they insinuate, that though they were not Tributa­ries to his Holiness, as England was; yet they ought to be protected by the Pope, because they had been con­verted by St. Andrew his Predeces­sors [Page 145] Brother-german: St. Andrew having in Hungus's reign obtain'd for them a Victory over the Saxons; and so became subject, and subservient to the Pope, in having converted the Saxons by Aidan, Finan, and Col­man. From this Matter of Fact, I observe, 1. That we own'd the same origination there, that our Hi­storians do to this day: and so our Ancestors differ'd not from our Hi­storians, much less are they irrecon­cilable, as St. Asaph alleadges. 2. That the English acknowledg'd us to be as ancient as the Britons, they and we being descended from two Brothers. 3. That what we said of St. Andrew, must needs be upon de­sign, to have oblidg'd the Pope, mean­ing certainly, either that we were then first effectually converted to the Church of Rome, from the Oriental Observations, in which we were very long very obstinate, and that Rome consider'd that, as the true Conversion; or that after that time we first became subject, tho not feudatary to the Pope, as these fore­cited words subjoyn'd do insinuate. [Page 146] But that our conversion from Paga­nism, was more than 400 Years be­fore the Saxons, is positively assert­ed in that same Apology. Nor can this have another meaning, for it is undeniable, that we were Christi­ans long before the reign of Hun­gus, who reign'd 800 Years after Christ: and Colman, &c. liv'd long before that King. Nor was Hungus our King, we being only Auxiliaries to him then, as King of the Picts: after which Apology, King Robert the 1st being crown'd, and having defeated King Edward at Banock-burn, where he gain'd a most signal Victory over the English, they then being low, made application to the Pope; and he having discharg'd us, by a formal Interdiction, to pursue the Victory into England; the Nobility, to pacify that Pope, and to remove the Interdiction, at the desire of the King, wrote Letter, wherein they own the Antiquity of our Nati­on, and Religion, and Royal-Line, mentioning when we came from Spain, as our Historians do, with whom they agree exactly, Vt ex an­tiquorum [Page 147] gestis, & libris, collegimus, says the Letter: which being prior to Fordon, proves that all this was not Fordon's Dream, and that our Histo­ry is well founded on old Records, prior to Fordon. And lastly, it ap­pears, that our Kings were not Vas­sals to England for their Crown, but only for these Provinces, as Pag. 46. my Lord St. Asaph confesses, and as I have prov'd in my Treatise of Precedency; albeit our Independency was as much controverted of old, as our Antiquity is now: and I hope that the one will shortly appear as unjust a Pretence, as the other is already confest to be. From this it appears, that there is rather a Harmony than real Contra­diction here, and that any seeming Contradiction is far less, than the real ones, betwixt Beda, and the Bishop of St. Asaph, and the following Con­tradictions, wherein he differs from himself. For clearing whereof, observe, That the Bishop says Pag. 8. he que­stions not the truth of any thing that is said to have been within 800, nay within 1400 Years; but so it is, that this would bring us to be setled [Page 148] here, before the Year 300 after Christ: for substract 1400 out of 1684, (which is the Year in which the Bishop prints his Book) his Lordship can controvert nothing ex­cept what was done within 284 Years after Christ: And yet he de­cryes our Historians, for saying, that we were settl'd here before the Year 503; and denies our being Christi­ans for many Years after the Year 300; and to improve this learn'd Bishop's just Concession, I must re­mark, that all our Historians agree, that Gregory the great King of Scotland, who died Anno, 892, ad­ded Northumberland to the Merse; and having defeated the Britons at Lochmaben, he forc'd them to re­new their ancient League, and to confirm to him the former Right, his Predecessors got from them to Cumberland, and Westmorland, for assisting them against the Picts and Saxons; which shews also, what great things we could do, not only alone without, but even against the Picts. All which being said by our Histo­rians, not only within the 1400 [Page 149] Years, but the 800, are not contro­vertible by the Bishop's concession: and therefore I understand not why he asserts Pag. 42. that we had nothing but the Kingdom of Argyle before the beating and extirpating of the Picts, who gave us their possession beyond Drumalbain. Nor can I reconcile, how the Bishop asserts all alongst, and particularly, Cap. 1. Para­graph 2, 3, and 12. that the Picts had nothing besouth Grahams-dyke, or the Frith of Forth and Clyde: and yet he confesses Pag. 156. that amongst the South-Picts, there was a Monastery of St. Martin at Whit-horn founded by St. Ninian, in honour of that Saint; and Whit-horn is in Galloway, in the furthest south point of our Scotland, near eighty miles besouth Forth; and himself also confesses Pag. 83. Whit-horn to be in Galloway.

The fourth Objection being, that our Historians have followed Ieffrey of Monmoth, in many rediculous inventions, which were purely his own; and particularly in the Hi­story of Bassianus, who being Em­perour, is by him pretended to have been kill'd in Britain, by Fulgenti­us; [Page 150] which, tho Buchannan does not exactly follow, yet he still makes Bassianus to have been a Roman Lieutenant, and to have been kill'd in Britain; whereas it appears not from any Roman Authors, that there was any Roman Lieutenant here. To this it is answered, That no Man comparing our Histories with Ieffrey of Monmouth, can think so: for we bring not our Nation from Brutus, as he does against com­mon sense; and tho Ieffrey tells a story of Bassianus the Emperour be­ing kill'd in Britain, which contra­dicts the Roman Story; yet Fordon does expresly say [...] Bassianus Cara­calla, qui [...] non pa [...]cis [...] Severo [...] l. 2. c. 45. it was not that Bassianus who was Emperour, but a Captain sent here: and so does not follow, but contradict Ieffrey. And Buchannan, to shew that he does not follow him (and he understood too well the Roman Story to do so) only relates that there was a Bassia­nus kill'd, which no Roman History contradicts; and which is not to be presum'd Buchannan would have made, since there is nothing in it for the advantage of his Nation: and [Page 151] as it is probable, the Emperour would not have suffer'd Carausius to make such great preparations, without sending a considerable Captain; espe­cially since Eutropius tells, that after many Wars attempted with Carausi­us, he at last concluded to send a Captain against him, without nam­ing who that Captain was. It were a hard thing therefore to conclude so great Authors were forgers, be­cause they condescend not upon an Author for every indifferent Circum­stance; and the Vid. Instit. ad Senatus. Co [...]. Trebell. Notitia Imperii is so far from having taken notice of eve­ry Lieutenant in a Legion, that I can prove by many Texts of the Civil Law, that even Consuls them­selves have been forgot, when they were only chosen to succeed to those, who died during their Consul­ship.

But the great Objection used by the Bishop, against our Antiquity, lyes in the 4th § of the Bishop's first Chapter, wherein he asserts, That Ireland was peopled by the Scots, and was the only Scotland before these times, viz. before the Year 503: And in the 5th §, That there were no [Page 152] Scots in Britain before the said Year 300. And in the 6th and 8th §; That the Scots, betwixt the 300 and 500 Years, were indeed here, but not setled, and only by way of Incursion. And in the 9th §, he asserts, That about the Year 500 they first setled here, and erected the Kingdom of Argile. And in the 12th and 13th §, he asserts, That after the Year 900, we got the rest of the Country, and then only it came to be called Scot­land.

For clearing all these Mistakes, without partiality or humour, I shall sum up my Answers in these distinct Propositions.

First, It is undeniable in it self, and acknowledged by our Adver­saries, that the first special Names, under which Ireland was known, were Ierna among the Ptolom. Geog. lib. 2. cap. 2. Greeks, and Hibernia among the Latins: both of which are, as I said, acknowledg'd by P. 722, 723, and particular­ly 724. Hanc insulam Britan­nidem olim à Julio Caesare vocatam Fabius Ethelwardus haud recte retulit: non alio enim quam Hi­berniae nomine, à Caesare, uti post eum à Plinio, Solino, & Tacito illam invenimus. Bishop Vsher himself.

[Page 153] My second Position is, That be­fore the Year 300, there is no Fo­reign Author produced by either Nation, that mentions Scotia, Scoti, or Scoticae gentes, except Seneca, who mentions the Scoto-brigantes: and Florus the Scoticae pruinae: and He­gisippus, who mentions Scotia: and Porphyrie, who mentions Scoticae gen­tes. And tho I have prov'd former­ly all these Authors and Passages to be genuine, and applicable to us a­lone: yet, tho they were only spuri­ous Authors, or the conjectural Read­ings of new Criticks, as Bishop P. 725, 726, 727, 728. Vsher (whom my Lord St. Asaph follows) alledges, Cap. 1. §. 4. Porphyrie only excepted, whose Testimony is admitted by him to be in the third Century. It clear­ly follows, that my Lord St. Asaph has, without sufficient Warrant, as­serted in the forementioned place, that Ireland was called Scotland be­fore the Year 300: he admitting no Author for this, save Porphyrie, whose Book he acknowledges not to be extant, but to be only cited by Ierom, who liv'd long after the Year 300.

[Page 154] 3. My chief Design in this Book, is not to debate the Antiquity of the Names of Scotia, or Scoti, but only when we first setled under Kings in this Isle. And consequently though Arch-bishop Vsher, and the Bishop of St. Asaph could prove, that the words Scotia, and Scoti, were not known the first 300 Years, except in Porphyrie; yet that cannot prove that we were not setled here be­fore that Time. For it is undenia­ble, that many Nations have had peculiar Names, before those Names can be found in History, as Scaliger very well proves: and they could not be known in Histories, till other Nations had commerce with them, and wrote of them, which was a thing very accidental. And Foreigners do oft-times design Nations by Ap­pellatives, which they themselves in­vent. And it is asserted by Bp Vsher, that the Scots inhabited Ireland long before the Year 300, tho till then he cannot give an Author for that word. And who can deny that the Picts liv'd long here before Eume­nius, [Page 155] who first mention'd them, and liv'd long after Porphyrie who men­tions the Scots? And it is very ob­servable that to this day, neither the Irish nor we are call'd Scots in the true Irish Language; for they call their own Country-men Erenach, from the word Ierna, or Ibernia, and us Albanach, from Albion, and Alba­nia: Which also clears, that we got that name long before Iulius Caesar's Time; since before that time, the word Albian was run into desue­tude, and was succeeded to by the more known name of Britannia: And these Originations are the more confirm'd, that to this day the same Irish, and our Highlanders, know no other names to the English, save Sassanach, because of Saxony from which they came; as they call'd us Albanach (to distinguish us from themselves) from the Country to which we came. Which may give us likewise a hint, how by Names, without Histories, most ancient Mo­numents of Antiquity may be pre­serv'd: And it is fully prov'd before that time, we were known in this [Page 156] Country, under the name of Beda l. 1. c. 1. Dal­reudini, and Tacit. in vita Agricol. Caledonii.

4. All those uncontroverted Te­stimonies, that make first mention of the Scots, and of Scotland, are only applicable to us: such as Claudian, Pacatius, Ammianus, &c. as has for­merly been fully prov'd. And since Hegesippus is the first Author produc'd by the Bp of St. Asaph, who mentions Scotia; and that it has been former­ly prov'd, that these Passages relate to Us, and not to Ireland; it follows clearly, that the name Scotia was given to Us, before it was given to Ireland, or that the Irish were call'd Scoti: Albeit it were admitted that the Works ascribed to Hegesippus, were really St. Ambroses, who flou­rished before the Year 400. And Cambden acknowledges that the Name of Scotland came over with the Scots to Britain, cap. 1. Hiber­nia. And therefore since I have prov'd, that the Scots came over before Iulius Caesar's Time; it fol­lows from Cambden, that the name of Scotland was ascribed to us before them.

[Page 157] 5. Tho it be true, and acknow­ledg'd on all hands, that Ireland was inhabited by the Nation of the Scots, as is written by Orosius in the Year 417; and that it be true that our Co­lony came from Ireland, as Beda and our Historians commonly assert, and that thence it may be said, that Hi­bernia est proprie Scotorum Patria. It will not follow that either We, or the Irish were called Scots before that Time; or that because We have de­riv'd our Colony from the Irish, that therefore We have deriv'd the Name of Scoti from them. But on the con­trary, supposing with Vsher, that the Nomen Scoticum had been first given in the third Century, then the Name behov'd to have been ours original­ly, who were more known and con­sider'd in the World than they, be­cause of the honour we had in the Roman Wars (whose Authors do first mention Scoti, and Scotia) and our early conversion to the Christian Faith: And by our frequent inter­course of Colonies with the Irish (as about the time of Fergus the second). [Page 158] It is probable we did communicate the Name of Scoti to these Inhabi­tants in Ireland, from whose Ance­stors we were descended, and among whom our Colonies, that were re­turned, setled; as at this day, the Scots in the North of Ireland do re­tain the Name, and as we had the name of Hibernia communicated to us from them; which is abundantly clear'd from what is said out of Eu­menius and Gildas. So that these names of Hiberni and Scoti have be­come common to both People; but with this difference, that as the Irish were originally called Hiberni; so our Scots were originally Scoti. For of all the Passages produced by Arch­bishop Vsher, or Bishop of St. Asaph, to prove the Irish to be called Scoti, that of Orosius is the first that is ap­plicable to them: for those from Claudian, Ammianus, Pacatius, and Hegisippus do not at all agree with them; nor yet that Passage from Prosper, as has been proved; nor these from Gildas: for tho he calls those People, who are said to re­turn home, Hiberni, or Irish; yet [Page 159] Pag. 117, 118. inter Ortho­doxogr.he calls the same People who re­turn'd home, Scots, and not Irish. And the Actions to which these Pas­sages cited against us relate, are un­controvertedly by Beda, Gildas, and all the Roman Authors, applicable to Us, and not to the Irish: being the three Vastations made by the Picts, and Vs in the British Territories. And Marianus (whom the Bishop likewise cites against us) Pag. 347. E­dit. Basu. does ex­pressly apply this to the Scots; for he uses the word Scoti, in speaking of all the three Vastations. And whereas Gildas useth the word Scoti, speaking of the first two Va­stations, and says, Hiberni rever­tuntur domum, speaking of the last: Marianus, repeating the same pas­sage, says, Scoti revertuntur domum. By which also I infer by a far better Consequence, that the Scots must be said to return to the place where they were formerly settled; but so it is, that the place where the Scots were formerly setled was the West of Scotland, and therefore when they return'd home, they return'd not to Ireland, as the Bp of St. Asaph alledges, [Page 160] but to our North-west Country, as we contend: for the word in Gildas, is à Gircio, which signifies North-West; and Ireland lies South-West from Grahams-Dyke, near which these Actions were done: But Ar­gile, and those Isles which We pos­sessed, lies indeed North-West from it. And if they had return'd to Ireland, they had been Trans-marine, as living in another Isle, contrary to Gildas's own express assertion, as it is interpreted by Beda, cap. 12. lib. 2.

2. Why should the Picts and Scots (being spoke of as to their going home together, the one to the North, and the other to the West) not be thought to have gone home to the same Isle, since different Isles are not mentioned? and if I said, I were going to the West, that in common sense could only be under­stood, of the West of that Kingdom or Island where I then were; and not of any other Kingdom lying to the West thereof. And both the Picts and Scots being equally called Trans-marine Nations, if the Scots [Page 161] went out of the Isle, it must follow that the Picts left it also, which ne­ver any was so ridiculous as to al­ledge. By all which it clearly fol­lows, that the words Scoti & Hi­berni were, before these Times, pro­miscuously ascribed to us. And tho Beda may speak of the Scots coming from Ireland, and setling a third Colony in Britain long before Iulius Caesar's time, yet that doth only prove the Antiquity of the Settlement of the People that are call'd Scoti, but not the Antiquity of their Name, concerning which Beda was not treat­ing: for he rather seems to insinuate the contrary, when Lib. 1. cap. 1. he says, Aquo (viz. duce Reuda) usque hodie Dal­reudini vocantur.

6. The Passages produced by the Bp of St. Asaph & Vsher, for proving that Ireland was called Scotia, after the Age that Hegisippus or Ambrose liv'd in, and within the 1000 Years, are very few: and many of them from Legendary Writers. But I shall glance at the most material. The first is Isidor Hispalensis, who [Page 162] liv'd in the 7th Century, and who says Lib. 14. cap. d [...] insulis. Scotia eadem & Hibernia, pro­xima Britanniae Insula, spatio terra­rum angustior, sed situ faecundior. The same words are used by Orosius, whom he follows, except that Oro­sius calls the Inhabitans Scoti, but does not call the Country Scotia, but Hibernia: so that Orosius having first call'd the Inhabitants of Ireland, Scoti, in the Year 417; Isidor by an ordinary derivation calls their Country Scotia, and is the first that Arch-bishop Vsher, or the Bishop of Saint Asaph, does produce to prove Hibernia to be call'd Scotia? and is in the Year 620, and so is too late to prove their Design, since it is clearly prov'd that our Country was called Scotia in St. Ambrose's Time, even by their own concession. And whereas the same Isidor, speak­ing of Ireland says, haec est proprie Scotorum patria; beside what has been formerly urged, it is observable that the word proprie does imply as if it might have been justly doubt­ed, and that it was not true in all senses: especially since Cap. 1. lib. 1. Beda uses [Page 163] the very same expression, after that he has fully cleared that we were settled here long before that time: and therefore it doth necessarly fol­low that these words are consistent with our being settled here; and consequently that they must not be so interpreted, as to infer that Ire­land was the place where We then liv'd but only the place from which We came: And such as understand the Civil Law, (the best Standard of the Latine Language) must ac­knowled, that there is, Cujac. lib. 14. Obs. 12. & ad legem 6. parag. gramatici ff. de excus. mum. Patria Ori­ginis, as well as Incolatûs & domi­cilii: And it may be justly said of those of Virgina and other English Plantations, that, Anglia est proprie illorum patria: And generally it is observable, that the Authors relat­ing both to us and them, do first call the People Scoti, and then the Country Scotia: but still the more ancient Authors call us Scoti before them, and our Country Scotia be­fore theirs.

As to the Citations out of Adam­nanus in vita Columbae, and Beda: [Page 164] It is certain that Adamnanus is lately publish'd by an Irish Hand, as ap­pears by the Marginal Notes, the Publisher still adding Hibernia in the Magin, where Scotia is in the Text. But however it is certain that Adamnanus was Abbot of Hy, which is Ikolmkil among the Scotish West Islands: so that in dubio he is pre­sum'd to be a Scots-man, and not an Irish; and Balaeus and others po­sitively assert him to be a Scots-man. Nor is there any reason for their cal­ling him an Irish-man; but because all Authors who speak of him, call him Scotus; and to assert a Man to be an Irish-man, because he is called Scots-man, is rather a Bull than a Reason. But because he is mention'd by Beda, who liv'd shortly after him, and is an Author of far greater Au­thority. What I shall observe from Beda, will serve to clear the Citati­ons out of both.

And first, Beda Ecgfridus Rex Nordan­humbrorum misso in Hiber­niam cum exercitu duce Berto, vastavit misere gentem innoxi­am & Anglorum genti semper amicissimam. Bed. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 26. re­lates, That Ecgfrid King of Northumberland, hav­ing sent an Army into Ire­land under Bertus, he [Page 165] wasted the Country, and the innocent People. And the next Year, having sent an Army to waste the Province of the Picts, contrary to the advice of his Friends, and of St. Cuthbert, God suffered that Army to be de­stroy'd, because the former Year he had rejected their Advice; Ne Scotiam nihil se Laeden­tem impugnaret. I id. That he should not invade Scotland, which did not wrong him. And to clear that the Scotia here express'd was not Ire­land, he adds, Angli & Sco­ti qui extant in Britannia. Ibid. The English and Scots who abide in Britain. This Passage (as well as the others which I have cited, and shall cite) proves, 1. That Scotland then was promiscuously express'd by the names of Hibernia and Scotia: For the same thing is said first to have been done in Hibernia, and thereafter it is said to have been done in Scotia: And this answers the Objection, Hiberni revertuntur do­mum; and where could their Home be but in Ireland? 2. It proves that this our Country was call'd Scotia in Beda's Time; and so long before the Year 1000, which the Bishop denies. Nor can it be prov'd that the King of Northumberland went to make [Page 166] War in Ireland; nor speaks Beda of any War with Ireland.

The next Passage from Beda is, where he says, Columbanus qui anno in­carnationis 565. Abbas & Presbyter venit de Hibernia in Britanniam praedicaturus Verbum Dei provinciis septen­trionalium Pictorum. Et gen­tem illam convertit, Vnde & praefatam insulam ab eis in pos­sessionem monasterii faciendi ac­cepit; ubi sepultus est. Ex quo Monasterio, & Monasterio de Daermach perplurima Mo­nasteria propagata sunt in Hi­bernia & Britannia, in quibus omnibus idem Monasterium insulanum, principatum tenet. Bed. lib. 3. cap. 4. That Columbanus an Abbot and Presbyter, came in the year 565, from Ireland to Britain, to preach the Word of God to the Pro­vinces of the North-picts: and converted them; and got from them possession of the former Island for founding a Monastery, where he was buried. Out of which Monastery (mean­ing Hy) many other Mo­nasteries were propagated in Ireland and Britain; in all which the same Island-Monastery was the chief. And he takes notice, that the Suc­cessors of this Abbot differed in the Observation of Easter from the Church of Rome, till the Year 716. And thereafter he says, That Ab hac ergo insula, ad Pro­vinciam Anglo­rum instituen­dam in Christo, missus est Aida­nus. Lib. 3. c. 5.Aidan was sent from this Island for instructing the Province of the English. Now he had said before, [Page 167] Aidanus de insula quae voca­tur Hy destina­tus, quae arcem tenet monasterio­rum Scotorum & Pictorum, & ad jus Bri­tanniae pertinet. l. 3. c. 3.Aidan who was sent from the Isle which is called Hy, which is the chief of the Scotish and Pictish Monaste­ries, and belongs to Britain. And thereafter he Colman vi­dens spretam su­am doctrinam, sectam (que) esse de­spectam; Sco­tiam regressus est. l. 3. c. 26. says, That Colman seeing his Doctrine slighted, and his Adherents despised, returned to Scot­land. So that we see, that that which at the first is called Cap. 4. Ireland; afterward is called Ibid. the said Island, and the Monastery in it, the Ibid. Island-Monastery; and thereafter it is Cap. 3. cal­led the Isle of Hy; and thereafter it is Cap. 26. called Scotland.

I shall cite a third Passage from Beda, where speaking of a great Plague in Britain, he adds, Haec autem plaga Hiberniam insulam, pariclade premebat: E­rant ibidem eodem tempore mul­ti Nobilium simul & mediocri­um de gente Anglorum, qui tempore Finani & Colmanni Episcoporum, relictâ insulâ patriâ, vel divinae lectionis, vel continentioris vitae gratiâ, illò secesserunt.—Quos omnes Scoti libentissime suspicientes victum eis quotidianum sine praetio, li­bros quo (que) ad legendum, & ma­gisterium gratuitum praebere c [...] ­rabant. l. 3. c. 27. This Plague also wasted Ireland with the same destruction; at which time there were there many of the Nobility and Com­mons of England, who in the time of the Bishops, Finan and Colman having left their own Native Island for the greater convenience, either of Divine Studies, or [Page 168] a more strict Life, had retired thither. —All whom the Scots kindly enter­tain'd, and furnished with all things necessary, and gave them freely Meat, and Books to read, and Learning, And thereafter speaking of Egbert, who was among them, he adds, Vnde & gen­ti suae, & illis in quibus exulabat nationibus Sco­rorum sive Pi­ctorum exem­plo fuit. Ibid.That he was a good Example to his own Nation, and to the Nations of the Picts and Scots among whom he liv'd retiredly; by which passages it is evident, that that which is here called Ireland, is really our Scotland; first, because it is said, they came from England upon the occasion of Finan and Colman, who were our Coun­trymen, and whose chief residence was the Isle of Hy, or Icolm-kill, (from which they came) which did then, and does still belong to us on­ly, and which the Bishop of St. Asaph also Cap. 5. gene­rally, and spe­cially, p. 109. confesses: and then because in their Monastick Life, it is said, they resided among the Scots and Picts, and Lib. 3. cap. 3. & ad jus Bri­tanniae pertinet. it is said before that the Island where the Monastery was, be­longed to Britain.

[Page 169] But for further clearing the for­mer Citations, from Beda I shall of­fer these following Considerations. 1. That Beda treats only the Acti­ons of these five Nations that did inhabite Britain: and if he do speak of France or Ireland, it is but upon occasion of them; as of the situa­tion of Ireland from whence the Scots came, or of some Monasteries depending upon Icolm-kill, which perhaps were situated near us, in the North of Ireland: and therefore unless all these passages were clearly applicable to Ireland, they must be understood of Scotland. 2. It being certain, that Beda, in the beginning of his Book, treats concerning the Scots in Britain, the Roman Wars with them, and Palladius's being sent to them, it necessarily follows, that the rest of the Book mention­ing the Scots, or that part of the Isle possess'd by them, is to be un­derstood of us, whether the Coun­try be called Hibernia or Scotia, or We Hiberni or Scoti: especially since Beda mentions a King call'd [Page 170] Aidan; and Buch. p. 152. we had a King of that Name in that time, which the Irish cannot pretend. Beda treats also concerning the Abbots of Hy, which is Icolm-kill, as is clear by that passage, Columba fun­dator monasterii quod in Hy ins [...] ­la, venerabile Scotis & Pi­ctis, & compo­sito nomine à Cellà & Colum­bâ Collum-celli vocatur. lib. 5. c. 10. where he says, Co­lumba, Founder of the Monastery in the Isle of Hy, venerable to the Scots and Picts, which by a compounded name from Columba and Cell is cal­led Icolm-kill. And that the Monks sent from this Monastery, or Island, were the Converters of the North-Saxons, and the first Bishops of Lindasfern or Holy-Island? Predeces­sors of the Bishop of Durham. 3. He makes frequent mention of little Islands, which never did belong to Ireland, but to Sotland, and are still called Hebrides; And so as the chief of these Isles where the Abbot resided the Records were kept, and the Kings were buried, might pro­bably be called Insula Hiberniae, or Hibernia, and that Scotia might be the Ordinary name to all that part of the Isle of Britain benorth the River of Clyde: so that the going from Hiberniâ, or Scotiâ, in Britan­niam, [Page 171] is nothing but the going to the other side of Clyde, Bed. l. 1. c. 12. by which, and Graham's-Dyke, that part of the Isle was distinguished from the rest, as if it had been a distinct Island. 4. The great Controversy at that Time being about the keeping of Easter, Lau­rentius Mellitus, and Iu­stus, Bishops, did write a Letter to us of the fol­lowing Tenor. Dominis Charissimis fratri­bus Episcopis vel Abbatibus per universam Scotiam Lau­rentius Mellitus, & Justus, Episcopi servi servorum Dei. Dum nos Sedes Apostolica more suo, sicut in universo orbe terra­rum, in his occiduis partibus ad predicandum gentibus Paganis dirigeret, at (que) in hanc insulā, qua Britannia nuncupatur, contigit introisse, antequam cognosceremus credentes, quod juxta morem u­niversalis Ecclesiae ingrederen­tur, in magna reverentia sancti­tatis tam Britones quam Sco­tos venerati sumus. Sed cog­noscentes Britones, Scotos me­liores putavimus. Scotos vero per Dagamum Episcopum in hanc quam superius memoravi­mus insulam, & Columbanum Abbatum in Galliis venientem, nihil discrepare à Britonibus in eorum conversatione didicimus. Nam Dagamus Episcopus ad nos veniens, non solum cibum no­biscum, sed nec in eodem hospitio quo vescebamur sumere voluit. Bed. lib. 2. cap. 14. Lauren­tius Mellitus, and Justus, Bishops, Servants of all the Servants of God, To our dearest Brethren, the Bi­shops and Abbots through all Scotland. Whileas the Apostolick Sea, according to the custom it hath ob­serv'd in the rest of the World, did send us to preach the Gospel unto the Heathens in these Western Parts; and that it hap­pened to us to come into this Isle which is called Bri­tain; we held in religious reverence both the Scots [Page 172] and Britons, believing that they did walk after the Custom of the Univer­sal Church. But after we had known the Britons, we judg'd the Scots to be the better minded: Yet now we perceive by Dagamus, the Bishop who is come hither, and by Colum­banus the Abbot in France, that the Scots differ nothing in their Observa­tions from the Britons; for Dagamus being here, refused not only to eat with us, but even to stay in the same Inn or Lodging. Now that this is only applicable to us, and not to the Scots in Ireland, the Subject doth prove, being Exhortatory Let­ters, to conform in the Observation of Easter, wherein the British Scots, who follow'd Columba, differ'd from the Roman Church. 2. The Letter is written to the Scots, and relates to other Letters written to the Bri­tons in the same Isle; and who need­ed the same Exhortation. And it is to be remembred, That Vsher ge­nerally concludes, that where the Scots and Britons are mention'd in Conjunction, by Scots there, are to be understood the British Scots. [Page 173] 3. In Append. ad l. 3. p. 231. And it is ob­servable that Marianus, p. 175 makes menti­on of other two Letters, in the Year 632. The one from Honorius, and the other from Pope Iohn, up­on the same head: both which Maria­nus says, were sent to us, and not to the I­rish. Camerarius cites Georgius New­ton, who about the Year 1500, be­ing then Arch-deacon of Dumblain, did write the Acts of that Church; and relates that he had seen the An­tographum of that Letter among the Records of that Church; and so it must necessarily have been written to the Scots in Britain, else it had not been in the custody of our Church­men, and at Dumblain.

I could produce many other Ci­tations to prove Scotland to have been call'd Hibernia in those Ages: but it is sufficient to add to these unanswerable Proofs already pro­duced, the authority of the Roman Martyrology; wherein Sanetus Bea­nus is design'd Episcopus Aberdoniae in Hibernia, at the 16 of December. To which Vardaeus an Irish-man in vita Rumoldi answers, That there might have been a place in Ireland call'd Aberdeen, because Aber is an Irish word, signifying a Marish, and there is a Town call'd Doun in Ireland, situated near a Marish. A pretty Witticism indeed! especially as he [Page 174] proposes the Objection, and answers the same, as you may see upon the Margin. Dices in Martyrologio Ro­mano vulgari legi ad diem 16. Decembris, Aberdone in Hi­bernia S. Beani Episcopi: Abredonensis autem sedes E­piscopalis est in Scotia Bri­tannica: Ergo vel in hac est, vel hac aliquando fuit Hiber­nia. pag. 379. Ad nugatorium ergo Sophis­ma distinguo Minorem: A­bredonensis, locus dequo Mar­tyrologium agit, est in Bri­tannia, Nego Minorem: alius ejusdem nominis, transeat. Vel absolute, Nego Consequentiam, ob fallaciam figurae dictionis; ut h [...]nc, Omnis Canis est la­trabilis; sed sidus est canis; Ergo sidus est latrabile, &c. pag. 380. But to take off all Debate, Beanus is nam'd in our Chartula­ries, as well as Histories, as the first Bishop of A­berdeen: and the Morti­fications granted to him by our King Malcom 2d, in the Year 1010, of the Lands of Murthlack, Cloveth, and Dounmeth, are yet extant: and his Tomb is yet to be seen in the Cathedral of Aberdeen, at the Postern Door of the Church.

To the former Passages I must al­so add, That albeit our Country was promiscuously call'd Scotia, and Hibernia, as has been prov'd, yet Scotia, even in that Time, was the more frequent Name of our Coun­try: and which, to keep close to Beda, appears; for when he speaks of the Isle Hy, (to which the for­mer Citations chiefly relate, and which was the place of our Coun­try, [Page 175] in which his History being Ec­clesiastick, is chiefly concern'd, as being then one of (if not) the most famous Monastery in the We­stern World) he expresses it to be in Scotia: as where he tells, That Ceollach de Natione Sco­torum, qui non multo post E­piscopatu [...] relicto reversus est ad insulam Hy, ubi plurimorum ca­put & arcem Scoti habuere cae­nobiorum. Bed. l. 3. c. 21. Ceollach, of the Nation of the Scots, leaving his Bishoprick in England, returned to Hy, where the Scots had their chief Monastery: And thereafter he tells, That Ceollach qui relicto Epis­copatus officio vivens ad Sco­tiam rediit. Bed. l. 3. c. 24. the same Ceollach hav­ing left his▪ Bishoprick, re­turn'd to Scotland. And the same Adamnanus Presbyter & Abbas Monachiorum qui erant in insula Hy. Bed. l. 5. c. 16. Beda, writing of Adamnanus, calls him Abbot and Presbyter of the Monks that are in the Monastery of Hy. And mentioning the same A­damnanus, Adamnanus reversus ad Scotiam. Bed. l. 5. c. 22.he tells, that he returned to Scotland, after his Embassy in Eng­land. And how can it be denied that Hy is in Scotland? since Beda calls it Scotland, and says, That it belong'd to Britain: and is by all Geographers nam'd one of our He­brides, and lies locally within our [Page 176] Country; and was one of the first places which we planted, and far remoter from Ireland, than Kintire and others of our Islands; and in which our Kings were buried, and our Records kept.

To conclude this Proposition, I shall add these Reflections.

1. That it is not so easy for the Bishop of St. Asaph to explicate him­self as to these Passages concern­ing Scotia and Scoti, and to make them signifie Ireland and Irish, since the 500 Year, as before: for ad­mitting that the Terms were anci­ently applicable to Ireland, and that the Scots when mention'd here, were but by Invasion from Ireland; Yet it being acknowledg'd, that after the Year 500 we were settled here; It follows, that when Scotia and Scoti are mention'd in relation to British affairs, and in conjuction with the Inhabitans of Britain, they must be understood of us, and our Coun­try. 2. Beda mentioning our Country to be call'd Scotia, as well as Hibernia, from Columba's Time to [Page 177] his own, it is not only an evidence, that it was so call'd in that Time, but that the Name had not been then first given, otherwise he could not have been ignorant of the Change, nor would he have failed to remark it: so that we may reasonably con­clude in his sense, the Name of Sco­tia is as ancient in Britain, as the Time he mentions the Settlement, Wars, and Religion of the Scots there. 3. It is evident, That the Bp of St. Asaph's Cap. 1. §. 9▪ Proposition is faulty, viz. That, when we settled here after the Year 500, our Kingdom was call'd Argyle, or Dalrieda: for if this had been true, this name being so recent, could not but have been noticed and used by Gildas and Beda, and yet it is never so much as once mention'd by either of them; tho Beda, upon the occasion of the Monastery of Hy, or Icolm-kill, and of the Bishops sent thence to England, doth frequently mention the Names Hibernia and Scotia, and that St. Asaph Cap. 5. §. 4▪ 5, 6, 7, 8. doth not controvert, but that these Bishops were sent from our Isle of Icolm-kill to England. 4. We may observe how [Page 178] warrantable Pag. 734. Arch-bishop Vsher's Position (repeated by the Bishop of St. Asaph) is, That no Author men­tions our Country by the name of Scotia for the first 1000 years; where­as most of all the former Authors, both within and without the Isle, prove Scotia to have been the name of our Country: and the whole Tract of Beda's History proves, that since the year 560, this Country was generally so called: Whereas neither Gildas, nor Beda, who lived near that Time, and wrote whole Books of us, do once call it Dalrieda, or Argyle: and consequently (as I observ'd be­fore) the Bishop of St. Asaph's whole Sect. 9. of the first Chapter, wherein he asserts, that about the Year 500, the Scots erected the Kingdom of Argile, or Dalrieda, is most unwarrantable; for though Beda calls us once Dalreudini, yet this is spoken of us by him, in the Time of our King Reuda, and so near 70 Years before the 503 af­ter Christ. And from this also a­rises a clear confutation of what the Bishop of St. Asaph asserts, [Page 179] that no Author writing within the 1000 Years, and naming Scotia, means Us; which is so far from be­ing so, that no Author of Credit ( Isidore only excepted) did then by Scotia mean Ireland. And the best Authority that Arch-bishop Vsher gives us for Dalrieda, is Ioce­lin; which my Lord St. Asaph hath improved by a new authority out of a Manuscript of the Lord Burgh­lie's, where the Author thinks that Dalrieda, and the Kingdom of Ar­gile, are the same. Authors not to be once mentioned with those whom we cite.

7. The distinction of Scotia Ma­jor, and Minor, is lately invented; for either Ireland was called Scotia Major before the Year 1000, or only since: if the first, then it ne­cessarily implyeth, that at that Time our Country was also call'd Sco­tia Minor, there being no other place assignable. But this is con­trary to Arch-bishop Vsher, and my Lord St. Asaph's Position, who deny our Country was called Sco­tia [Page 180] at all for the first 1000 Years. If it be asserted that this distinction was after the 1000 Years, then there was little or no use for it: For Pag. 734. Vsher tells us, that Nubiensis Geo­graphus, about the Year 1150, de­scribes Ireland by the name of Hiber­nia, and describes our Country by the name of Scotia: and so it seems at that time Ireland had lost the name in our favour; and it is not to be imagin'd that Nubiensis remarked the first Periods of the change of the Name; and Geographers do de­scribe Countries by their ordinary Names. Nor does Vsher Pag. 724, & 737. produce any other Testimony, save a Letter of Dovenaldus Oneil Prince of Vlster to Pope Iohn 22d, wherein there is this passage, Quod praeter Reges minoris Scotiae, qui om­nes de nostra majore Scotia originem sump­sero. Beside the Kings of lesser Scotland, who all came originally from our greater Scotland. And a Patent of Sigismund the Emperor, Conventus Scotorum & Hibernorum de majore Scotia Monasterii ia Ratisbona. To the Convent of the Scots and Irish of Greater Scotland of a Mo­nastery in Ratisbone. Now Vsher acknowledgeth the eldest of these two Citations, were in the 14th or 15th Century; when I hope no [Page 181] body will assert, that Ireland was cal­led Scotia Major, or that ever the Kings of England, who were Lords of Ireland, were ever called Lords Majoris Scotiae; and it is probable they would have very much affected that Title (if the Country had had that name) altho they could never make themselves Masters Scotiae Mi­noris. But it is no wonder, that the Irish should be glad to tell Fo­reigners, that they were our Chief, and so their Country ought to be called Scotia Major; notwithstand­ing that our Nation was then be­come great and glorious: and that Vsher can find no better authority for his distinction of Scotia Major and Minor, than these borrowed and magnifying Names, used long after he himself acknowledgeth that Ire­land had lost the name of Scotia, and that We were only in possession of it.

8. The mistaking of the Names of Scotia and Hibernia, and of that assertion, Scotia eadem & Hibernia, and applying these Names still to [Page 182] Ireland, and not to our Country, hath been the Ground whereupon we have been injured, as to the antiqui­ty of our Kings and Country, Saints and learned Men, Monasteries, and greatness Abroad. For admitting it to be true, that we were not setled here till the Year 500, yet we have been so happy, as to have such ex­cellent Men, and to have done so considerable Actions, as have been sufficient to tempt our Neighbours, and particularly the Irish, to take great pains to have both pass for their own. In order to which the Irish have lately invented the di­stinction of Scotia Major and Minor, to the end, that when any conside­rable Person is called a Scots-man in History, they might claim him as descended from the Greater Scotland. But besides, that this distinction is too new to be extended to ancient Writers, How can it be imagined that our Country, only having pas­sed under the Name of Scotland before the 300, and after the 1100, as has been proved, Ireland should have assumed the Name of Scotland [Page 183] in that Interval? Is it not more rea­sonable to think that our Country, which alone was design'd by that Name, before the 300, and after 1100, bore it likewise only, or at least chiefly, during that interval. But to assert that, during that space, another Country had our old and present designation in a more pecu­liar manner than we; and that in dubious Cases it must be appropriated to them, is a piece of confidence which even eminent Wit and Learn­ing cannot support. And yet we find, in Malcom the Second's Time, (as was formerly observ'd) who began to Reign in the Year 1004, That the Frith of Forth (in his Laws, in the Book of Regiam Ma­jestatem) is call'd Mare Scotiae: And it is said there, that the same King did distribute, omnem Terram Scotiae hominibus suis: and it is not to be concluded, that this was the first time that our Country was so call'd. And about that time Ire­land was expressed only by the name of Hibernia; for King Henry the 2d of England, who began to Reign [Page 184] in the Year 1154, is stiled Lord of Ireland.

And to clear further that Sco­tia about those times was the ordi­nary name for Scotland, and Heber­nia for Ireland, I shall only add some few Passages out of Marianus Scotus, who was born in the Year 1028, and died in the Year 1086, Brianus Rex Hiberniae neca­tur. pag. 423.who sayes, that about the Year 1016, Brianus, King of Ireland, was killed; and a little thereafter, Moelcolium Rex Scotiae o­biit, Donchad filius filiae ejus sibi successit. pag. 424. at the Year 1034. Malcolm King of Scotland died, and Duncan the Son of his Daughter succeeded him. And after that he sayes, at the Year 1040, Donchad Rex Scotiae occiditur & Mefinlaech successit in Reg­num ejus. p. 425.Duncan King of Scotland, was killed, and the son of Finlay succeeded in his Kingdom, whom afterward Pag. 427.he calls Mackbeth. Machetad King of Scotland. All which passages agree exactly with our History, and the summary of our Kings Lives, as they are re­corded in our Acts of Parliament, and prove that Marianus treats of Scotland, and Ireland, as different Kingdoms in his Time.

[Page 185] In the last place, I shall make some Remarks upon the most palpable of these Mistakes, and of the chief Au­thors thereof: wherein I shall vin­dicate the Right and Dignity of our Country, and assert these wor­thy Persons controverted to be ours. I shall not insist much against Stani­hurst, he being solidly confuted by Appen. ad l. 3. Camerarius, and with that severity by Dempster, that his Nephew Bishop Vsher (as the Duke of Lau­derdail remarked in some Judicious Reflections of his upon this occasion) did highly resent it, and in this Mat­ter hath exceeded his usual Tempera­ment and Moderation. And yet Stanihurst never speaks injuriously of our Nation; for though he mi­stakes many things, and applys them to his own Country; yet it appears to be, rather of Design to magnifie it, than injure ours: for he acknowledeth ingenuously, Lib. 1. p. 17. Verum à quo pri­mum initio Sco­tiae nomen sit tractum, nondum plane perspectum video. That he doth not clearly see from what time the Name of Scotland commenced. And though thereafter he taxeth Boethius upon the Subject of Gathe­lus [Page 186] and Scota, and that he mixeth Fables and Vain glory with his Hi­story; yet he neither disapproves of Buchannan, nor follows he Luddus, both of whom he cites, and who were immediatly before him; his Book being printed at Antwerp, in the Year 1584. In his Appendix al­so, Commenting upon Giraldus Cambrensis (a Welsh-man, and Screta­ry to King Henry 2d of England, and flourished before the end of the 12th Century) He translates Cam­brensis, who describes Ireland by the name of Hibernia, and makes fre­quent mention of our Country un­der the name of Scotia; as when he speaks of the extent of Ireland, he says (as Stanihurst interprets it) that Quantae cir­cumscriptis Wal­lia & Scotia potior insula Britannicae pars Regibus (que) anti­quis appropriata. pag. 223. it is equal in largeness to Wales and Scotland. And elsewhere he says, that Scotia quoque pars Insulae Bri­tannic [...] dicitur Aquilonaris. p. 245. Scotland is called the North part of the Isle of Britain. And af­terwards he tells the Story of Mo­reds six Sons, and that from them the Inhabitants of the North part of Britain, Specificato vo­cabulo gens Sco­tica appellatur. cap. 19. by a specifick word, were called the Scotish Nation. And Sta­nihurst in his Annotations on these [Page 187] two Chapters contends, that before St. Patrick's time our Country was called Scotia; and brings for proofs St. Ierome, who asserts that the Scots were Gens Britannica; but with great concern he vindicates us from the ca­lumny of eating Mens Flesh: and for our Antiquity he cites Beda, who says, that Sub duce Rendâ we made a third Nation in Britain. So that we see that neither the Welsh in Gi­raldus's time, nor the Irish in Stani­hurst's time, had the Opinion of our late Settlement, and that our Coun­try was not call'd Scotia for 1000 Years after Christ; which their Suc­cessors Luddus, Cambden, Vsher and St. Asaph have had. And the Irish in those days took a far better way for advancing their own inte­rest in doing us justice; since from all the considerable Actions we did, there did arise a measure of that Honour to them, from whose Coun­try we came as a Colony: Where­as since they were influenc'd by Strangers, they have suffer'd them­selves to be impos'd upon, so as to lessen our true Merit, in appropri­ating [Page 188] immediatly to themselves those devout persons, who were really our Country-men: not considering that the material unjustice was much greater than the imaginary honour: And this Plagiarism and Man-stealing became easie to them since our Refor­mation from Popery, because after that time we became too careless of those eminent Persons both at home and abroad, who had liv'd in the Roman Communion, or before that time. But I will not insist on this, for I hope their native kindness will incline them to return to their first just methods.

If I had leisure, I would make lar­ger Reflections, Pag. 789. to prove how uncon­sequential Arch Bp Vsher is, in making Sedulus and Marianus Irish: since by all Writers they are both call'd Scots, and Balaeus an Englishman tells us, that Pag. 187. Cent. 14. Sedulius flourish'd under Fer­gus 2d. and Pag. 210. Cent. 14. Marianus under Macbeth, both our Kings; and Baronius asserts also this positively. And Sedulius having liv'd before St. Patrick's Time (who was the first Apostle of Ireland) [Page 189] and being Disciple to Hildebert an acknowledg'd Scot, and who liv'd in the 390, must be prior to the Irish Christianity; which Giraldus and Stanihurst acknowledge to have been first planted by St. Patrick in the Year 432. Nor can Pag. 789. Vsher in all his vast reading, find any Christi­ans in Ireland betwixt the Year 400, and 432, which was St. Patrick's Time, but Kiaranus, Ailbeus, Decla­nus, Ibarus: Tho if Sedulius had been an Irish, he had been certainly mention'd and employ'd, before those obscure Persons; and certainly he would have employed himself be­fore St. Patrick's Time in the Con­version of his own native Country, if he had been truly Irish. And as to Marianus Scotus, it is a wonder how it can be controverted that he was a Scots-man; since our Country was then called Scotland by the Bp of St. Asaph's own confession; and Ireland was just then losing that name; and Marianus in his whole Book distin­guishes betwixt Scoti and Hiberni, and mentions the forementioned three Kings of Scotland about whose [Page 190] Time he liv'd; and also makes men­tion of one King of Ireland about that time: as has been observed al­ready; and particularly, speaking of the Conversions Ad Scotos in Christum cre­dentes ordinatus à Papa Caelesti­no Palladius pri­mus Episcopus missus est. Post ipsum Sanctus Patricius conse­cratus & ad Archiepisco­pum Hibernen­sem mittitur, & totam insulam Hiberniam con­vertit ad fidem. pag. 340. by Palladius and St. Patrick, he expresly distinguishes betwixt Scoti, and Hibernenses.

But passing these, I confess it is pretty ridiculous to see a whole Book written by the above-men­tioned Vardaeus, and glossed by Si­rin, and published at Louvain 1662, to prove that Rumoldus Arch-Bishop of Mechlin was an Irish-man: since the Arms of Scotland (which are, Or, a Lion Rampant Gules, within a doubles Tressure flowred and coun­terflowred with Flower de lis of the same) are plac'd upon every Win­dow of the Catherdral Church built by him, and are to this day a part of the Arms of that Archi-Episcopal See, Ru­moldus himself being a younger Bro­ther of the Royal-Family of Scotland: And in which witty Book, the Author, to confute this, Artic. 4. & pag. 281. is forced to maintain that the Scotish Lion is born by several Irish Familes; And the double Tressure, tho anciently [Page 191] born by Scotland, and which is Blazon'd in that Archi-Episcopal Coat of Arms, might have been born by the Irish, because that famous League betwixt the Scots and Charle­maigne, was made with the Kings of Ireland, and not with the Kings of Scotland; and that our Kings had never any Leagues with the French, till the reign of Charles 7th who was contemporary with our King Iames 1st: Whereas the whole French Histories, as well as ours; and all Foreign Historians, as well as either, the Leagues yet extant; the Priviledges granted thereupon to us, recorded in the French Re­gisters, and ours; many Decisions in Parliaments, and other Courts; and the universal consent of all the French who ever liv'd since that Time, do in all Humility seem to be sufficient Warrants for laughing at this monstruous Assertion; as I do at him and others, who pretend that the Scotish Monasteries in Germany, are Irish: since they were founded in Charle-Maigne's Time, by William Brother to our King Achaius, and [Page 192] others that went there with him; and they are to this day govern'd by Abbots and Priors of our Country: Nor can it be understood, how the French and Germans could mistake their own Records and Foundations for so many hundreds of Years toge­der, and by this I leave my Reader to measure the other unjust preten­sions of such Authors.

I hope it now at last appears, that I have detected those ingenious Ar­tifices, which this learn'd Bishop was forc'd to use, to supply his want of solid and just grounds in this his undertaking. As,

1. That, to conciliate respect to this Undertaking, as well as to ex­cuse it, he pretends that it was ne­cessary for the defence of Episco­pacy.

2. He makes a great muster of old Authors in the beginning of his Book, as if all these were Men of great credit, and did concur with him to refute our History; and a­dorns his Margins with formidable numbers of Citations.

[Page 193] 3. Knowing that it could be prov'd, both by British and Foreign Historians, that we were here very anciently, he confesses this; but by a new and strange Invention, he as­serts that we were not here as settled Inhabitants, but only by way of Incursion.

4. He defers our Setling here, till the Year 503, and so longer than the first Inventors of this new Story did; upon design to make our Set­tlement here, later then that of the Anglo-Saxons, who settl'd here in Anno 449.

5. He lessens the reputation of all our Historians, and endeavours also to make them pass but for one; as if the succeeding Historian had seen no other Warrants, but the pre­ceeding Histories.

6. He treats in ridicule Ieffrey, and some other Historians of his own Country, whom he knew could not be sustain'd however; and this he does upon design, to shew his impartiality, and that he spares not his own more than ours.

[Page 194] 7. For the same reason he de­crys the British descent from Brutus: in which he loses nothing, because no sober Man could have defended it; and he denies the Conversion of their own King Lucius, to strike thereby with the greater authority at the Antiquity of our Royal-Line and Nation, treating King Donald's Conversion also as a Fable: and thus according to our Proverb, He is content to let a Friend go with a Foe.

8. He complements our Nation in latter Times, to excuse the Injury he does our Kings and Antiquity.

9. He uses the Foreign Authors that should be urg'd for us, to pre­vent our using of them as proving Arguments against him.

10. Finding that Ireland has been call'd Scotia, he transplants our old Saints thither, and applies to it, all that is said of our Country: nor did ever any Author improve better a pitiful Clinch.

11. He concurs in another de­sign like to this: for, because it could not be deny'd that Fergus [Page 195] was our first King; all the Citati­ons for proving this, are therefore apply'd to Fergus the Second, and not to Fergus the First.

Lastly; Whereas Cambden and Arch-bishop Vsher speak doubtingly of their own Arguments; the Bishop of St. Asaph fearing that his Reader could not be convinc'd, of what him­self was not, he therefore proposesall these Arguments, with a confidence, which would seem to argue that full conviction in himself, which he wishes in others.

If any Person then would know how that Scotland, which was but a small Colony, grew up to a King­dom that deserv'd so well: my thoughts of this are, that, 1. The constant defence that we were ob­lig'd to make against the Romans and Britons at first, and English thereafter, Nations wise, brave, and polish'd, living in the same Isle with us, and the Picts within us, did force us to think and fight; and the observing the Actions & Conduct of such Ene­mies could not leave the observers [Page 196] rude or ignorant: and it's like that the Glory of such Noble Adversaries, rais'd our Wit and Courage above the pitch of a Northen and confin'd Nation. 2. Our Country hav­ing had the happiness to stop the Ro­man Conquest, this gave Strangers a value for us; and therefore when any of the gallant Britons scorn'd to submit to the slavery and drudgery of a Conquest, they fled unto us from the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans; and being passionate lovers of Liberty, they animated us by their Assistance and Example. This likewise brought in brave Strangers amongst us, as all gallant Spirits did lately run to Holland in its first rise: and (as our Historians probably relate) very many of those return'd with Fergus the Second from the Wars in Italy, whither that generous young Prince went to assist Alarick against the Romans, in a just resent­ment of the injury done by them to his Predecessors, and with whom he was present at the sacking of Rome. 3. We have been very happy in so Heroick and Wife a Race of Kings, [Page 197] whose Blood being refin'd by a long Royal Descent, hath been thereby purifiy'd from all meanness, and ele­vated to that Love for glory, which is ordinary in those, who never knew what it was to obey. 4. Our Coun­try having entered early into a re­markable League with France, in the Reign of Charle-Maigne; our Country-men got excellent Breed­ing, under so Wise and Valiant a Prince; and have ever since, by being constantly employed in the French, and other Wars, attain'd to a de­gree of Merit, beyond what was to be expected in this Climate. 5. Our Country having neither Bogs nor Fogs, our Ground being Rocky and Gravelly, and our Air fann'd by Winds; this preserves us from the dulness and phlegm of the Nor­thern Climats; and the want of that superfluous Plenty, and bewitching Pleasure, which softned even Han­nibal when he came to Capua, pre­serves us against the Delicacy and Effeminateness of Southern Nations. And whereas (Heroick Virtue be­ing still attended by Envy) some [Page 198] in railery pretend, that we were un­conquer'd, because we deserv'd not the pains and trouble of a War. I need not seriously answer, what no Historian can urge: For it is ridi­culous to think, that the Romans would not have rather conquer'd us, than built two strong and ex­pensive Walls against us, which bounded their Fame, as well as their Conquest. And England hath ta­ken too much pains to gain us, ei­ther by Conquest or Alliance, to have undervalued us. And though when we were divided by the dif­ferences betwixt the Bruce and Bar­liol of old, and betwixt the Roy­alists and Covenanters of late; the half of our Country having only defended its Liberties, whilst the other half joyn'd with its Enemies; we were rather betray'd than o­vercome: And yet we soon reco­vered our former Liberty. Albeit, to be overcome by England had been no great affront to us: England be­ing a greater and richer Nation than we are. And therefore I hope, all honest Men will, with Judicious [Page 199] Samuel Daniel in his History, at the Year 1296, confess, that it had been a pity, we had not had a better Country, to be the Theatre of so many worthy and heroick Acti­ons.

Having thus clear'd how our Na­tion arriv'd at its present consistence, I am to finish this Discourse, with a representation of the many Rights which our Kings have to the Impe­rial Throne of these Kingdoms; and to show how they succeed to all who ever pretended to Monarchy in any of them.

As to the British part of the Isle, Aurelius Ambrosius was, by com­mon consent, chosen sole Prince of all the Britons: And he had no other Succession, save two Daugh­ters, Anna married to the King of the Picts, and Ada married to the King of the Scots. Mordredus King of the Picts, Grand-child to the fore­said Aurelius, finding himself debarr'd from the Succession of the British Crown, employ'd the Scots, who [Page 200] fought for him against the Britons. But the Britons having called in the Saxons, after a bloody Battel, both Parties were forced to withdraw; and the King of the Picts was in­duc'd to desist from his Pretentions at that time. But thereafter Hungus, King of the Picts, and the direct Heir of the same Mordredus, and con­sequently of Ambrosius King of the Britons, gave his Sister Fergusiana to Achaius King of the Scots; and in her Right, Alpin King of Scotland succeeded both to the British and Pictish Crowns; Hungus having died without any Children, Kenneth the 2d, Son to Alpin, was forc'd to conquer the Picts, who refus'd un­justly to receive him as their lawful King.

Our Kings are likewise Lineal Heirs of the Danish-Race, who were Kings of England for 27, or as o­thers say, 29 Years; they being the only Lineal Successors of Canutus King of the Danes in Britain: for Margaret, Wife to King Malcolm the 3d, was Sister to Edgar, which Edgar [Page 201] was Grand-child to St. Edward, who was Brother to Hardiknut, Son to Canutus.

After this the Kingdom of Eng­land return'd to the old Stock in King Edward's Time; to whom succeeded Edgar, whose Sister the pious Queen Margaret married King Malcolm the 3d of Scotland, by whom he came to have right to the Crown of England; there being none extant of the old Royal-Saxon-Line besides her self: And with her came very many of the Nobi­lity, who fled from William the Con­querour, after he conquer'd England, and with whom King Malcolm would not make Peace, till such of them as resolved to return were restored to their Estates.

The next Royal-Race which flou­rished in England, was the Norman: and to that Race our Kings succeed­ed thus.

The Line of William the Conqueror was branch'd out in the Houses of Lancaster and York. To the House of [Page 202] Lancaster, they succeed as Heirs by the marriage betwixt Ioan Daugh­ter to the Duke of Somerset, and un­doubted Successor of the Family of Lancaster. And to both Lancaster and York they succeed, by being Heirs to Henry the 7th; in whom these Successions were again happi­ly reconcil'd; he having married Elizabeth eldest Daughter to Edward the 4th, who had transferred the Succession of the Crown from the House of Lancaster, to that of York, or at least had united the two in one. For clearing whereof, it is fit to know, that Henry the 7th had only four Children, Arthur, Henry, Margaret, and Mary. Arthur, and Henry dying without Succession, the Right of the Crown was certain­ly devolv'd upon the Children of Margaret the Daughter; who did bear King Iames the 5th, in a first Marriage with King Iames the 4th; and Margaret Dowglas, by a second Marriage with the Earl of Angus: which Margaret being married to Matthew Earl of Lenox, had two Sons; the eldest whereof was Henry, [Page 203] who thereafter married Queen Mary Daughter to King Iames the 5th; and begot upon her King Iames the 6th: and thus King Iames the 6th was upon all sides Heir to William the Conquerour, and to Henry the 7th.

The Histories also of both Na­tions confess, that our King is the undoubted Successor of the Blood-Royal of Wales: for Walter Stuart, from whom our Kings are descend­ed, was Grand-Child to the King of Wales, by his Daughter, Lesl. in vita Dav. 2. who married Fleanchus Son to Baker, p. 159. Edit. 1643. Banqhuo: and Henry the 7th (to whom King Iames the 6th was the true Suc­cessor) was also the righteous Heir of Cadwallader the last Prince of Wales.

The Histories both of Scotland and Ireland do acknowledg, that our Kings are undoubtedly descended from the Royal Race of the Kings of Ireland; and all the debate that can be, is only whether they be de­sended from King Ferquhard, Fa­ther [Page 204] to King Fergus the first, or from Eeric Father to King Fergus the second; or from some other Irish Kings, as Vsher pretends.

From all which I may draw two Conclusions; First, that God has, from an extraordinary kindness to those Kingdoms, lodged in the Per­son of our present Soveraign, King Iames the 7th (whom GOD Al­mighty long preseve) all those op­posite, and different Rights, by which our Peace might have been formerly disturb'd. 2. That His Majesty who now Reigns, has deriv'd from His Royal Ancestors, a just and legal Right by Law, to all those Crowns, without needing to found upon the Right of Conquest: so that the very endeavour, to exclude him from all those Legal Rights, by Arbitrary Insolence, under a Mask of Law, was the height of Injustice, as well as Imprudence.