the same was extracted out of the Registers and Books he mention'd and particularly out of the second Book of Verimund 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 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 Balaeus a Learn'd English-man hath rested And 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 tempora And it is incredible to think so good and grave a Man as Boetius could have been so impudent to assert in 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 That in Iona 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 I hope it must be by the Authority of far more and far more credible Authors agreeable to a Principle of Dr. Stillingfleet's the Patron of our Bishop's Book who 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 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
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 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 the first Inhabitans for which we cite 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Years but the 800 are not controvertible by the Bishop's concession and therefore I understand not why he asserts 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 that the Picts had nothing besouth Grahams-dyke or the
A DEFENCE OF THE ANTIQUITY OF THE Royal Line OF SCOTLAND WITH A true Account when the Scots were govern'd by Kings in the Isle of Britain By Sir GEORGE MACKENZIE His Majesty's Advocate in Scotland London Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. To the KING SIR DIvine Providence having suffered these Kingdoms to destroy one another for many Ages in divided Monarchies reserv'd their happy Union for the Merciful Royal Family of which Your Majesty is now the Head and mingl'd lawfully in their Veins all those many and different Bloods-Royal which pretended to any Soveraignty in these your Dominions designing thereby at once to reward the Vertue of Your Majesty's Predecessors and to endear that Union to us in preventing future Debates In King Iames Your Royal Grand-Father these Nations got a Monarch who was acknowledg'd to be the Solomon of His Age who excell'd all His Contemporary Princes in King-Craft all his Ministers in Prudence and all His Doctors in Learning None of his Subjects understood the Law better or observ'd it more and who knew as well all that was done at Council-Tables abroad as they who sat at them To Him succeeded Your Majesty's Royal Father whose Life was the best Law a King could make who knew no use of Power save to do good by it who was less careful of His own Blood than of that of his Subjects And I may justly say that Heaven only was govern'd by a better King After we had shown our selves unworthy of such Monarchs the Divine Goodness to try us once more gave us Your Gracious Brother whose Clemency after so many and so great Injuries was as great a Miracle as His Restoration who knew every thing save to be severe and could bear every thing save to see His People in trouble who after the abuse of His Goodness had made his Enemies so insolent that His Servants concluded all was lost did by His extraordinary parts with a gentle easiness peculiar to Himself dissipate those execrable Combinations to our great satisfaction and amazement But Sir the Conscience of His Enemies will far exceed in His Praises the Eloquence of His Servants and so my trembling Hand leaves this Melancholy Subject His Throne is now fill'd with Your Sacred Majesty whose Abilities Your Royal Brother esteemed so much that He shar'd with You the Exercise of the Government before His Death gave you the Possession of the Crown In You Sir Your People have a General to their Armies an Admiral to their Fleet a Treasurer to their Mony whose Courage can lead them as far as theirs can follow and raise the Glory of these Kingdoms as high as they can wish So that if they be not happy they will have this Addition to their Misfortunes that the World will see that they themselves are only to be blam'd for it Our Country Sir does not boast of a rich Soil or a hot Sun but it may that it has given these happy Islands those Gracious and Glorious Kings In return whereof we might have expected kinder Rewards than that any of their Natives should debate its Antiquity and the Veracity of those Histories wherein the great Actions of Your Royal Predecessors were recorded And since the Honour of the Ancient and Royal Race of our Soveraigns is the chief thing wherein we Glory it is hard to deny us a Favour so just on our part and so easy on theirs However Sir since I presume that those of Your other Subjects who controvert this do so rather from want of information than from unkindness I who am resolv'd to make the defence of Your meanest Priviledges my greatest Honour have thought it incumbent to me as Your Advocate to undertake the defence of that Antiquity which makes Your Majesty the most Ancient Monarch upon Earth Which Argument I hope I have manag'd with that Candour which becomes an honest Man and that Zeal which is the Duty of SIR Your Majesty's most Dutiful Loyal and Obedient Subject and Servant Geo. Mackenzie A LETTER to the EARL of PERTH Lord High Chancellor of SCOTLAND Upon his having sent to the Author the Bishop of St. Asaph's Book With some Reflections upon the Design of that Book My Lord I Have read the Book you sent me with that delight I did of old a Play which one may think it resembles more than our Histories do a Romance For what is truly related is so disguised and transposed as may best suit with the Author's Design and with a Rhetorick so Polite and Comical that if the Reasons do not convince yet the Humour and Stile may charm and please even some of those against whom it is design'd This made me unwilling at first to undertake to answer a Book which I suppose might have more Admirers than Proselytes but finding upon a second perusal that the Author had not fully examined the Grounds upon which our Historians proceeded or had suffered himself to be byass'd by Zeal for his Order or Partiality to his Country And that this whole Kingdom take it as an Injury done not only to the Antiquity of the Royal Family but to this our Nation in general I was at last prevailed with to enter the Lists with a kind Design by a sober and candid Information rather to convince and satisfy the Author and those he may have misled than to acquire the vain glory of such a Victory especially over one who bears the Character of a Bishop for which I have so great a Veneration Altho for the Reasons following I cannot but dislike his unnecessary Undertaking and unseasonable and partial Management of a National Debate which we are prohibited to enter upon under pain of a Sedition 1. I am sorry that while these Kingdoms are unhappily divided not in Nations but Opinions the old Animosities amongst Scots English and Irish being forgot and buried and the modern Differences between the Episcopal and Fanatick and Cavalier and Republican or as some term it Whig and Tory are so violent and turbulent the Author should have diverted our just and dutiful Zeal by imploying it in defence of an important right of State unkindly as well as unnecessarily invaded so as the other of near concern to the Church may in some measure come to be neglected 2. The pretext for writing this Book wherein the Antiquity of our Kings and Nation is so much disparag'd being that the Presbyterians and particularly Blondel urg'd from our Historians that we had a Church for some Years without Bishops it seem'd neither just nor fit that any Episcopal Author should have magnify'd so highly the meanest Argument that ever was us'd by a Presbyterian as for it to cut off 44 Kings all preceding Coranus who began his Reign anno 501 and to expose on a Pillory as Forgers our many and grave Historians And that it is a weak Argument appears from this that I have met with very few Laicks in all our Country who had
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 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 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 it is fit to consider that is very probable 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 govern'd by three Scotish-Bishops Aidan Finan and Colman and Abercorn mention'd by Beda and Melross the Chronicle whereof begins where 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 Primus in Albania fertur Regnasse Kenedhus Filius Alpini praelia multa gerens 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 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 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 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 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-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 cites Verimund for an account of the Scots and Picts and after he also cites him for the Miracle of St. Andrews in Hungus's time and he gives an account of the tenor of the League betwixt Charles the Great and Achaius and asserts that
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 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 And these our Irish Manuscripts agree in every thing with the above-cited 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 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 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 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 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 Tom. 2. pag. 652 653. sequent One of the most accurate Writers in this Age 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 Imperii fuerat Romani Scotia limes Romani Eloquii Scotia finis erit And 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 in saying That Buchannan in the 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
Construction And whereas the Bishop pretends 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 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 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 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 Nam quid Britannum Coelum differre putamus c. Claudianus de quarto consulatu Honorii Terribilis Mauro debellatorque Britanni Littoris A further Confirmation of this arises from the same Eumenius in this same Panegyrick where speaking of Constantius's Victory over this Island he saith Neque enim ille tot tantisque 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 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 liv'd Anno 367 complements him upon 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 Caledonius postquam tua Carbasa vexit Oceanus Phrygios prius indignatus Iulos And Martial who liv'd also in Domitian's time says Quinte Caledonios Ovide visure Britannos Et viridem Tethyn Oceanumque Patrem 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 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 afterwards the King's Advocate of France who in his learn'd History of the High-ways of Rome 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 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 same Life of Agricola wherein 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
the practice of others but from Sabellicus gliscere indies id malum augebatur duarum gentium audaciâ apparebatque 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Favin in his Theatre of Honour and 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 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 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 but by Sansovin an Italian who writes the History of the Douglassii or Scoti whom he 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 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 That after King Fergus ' s death the Nobility finding his Son too young and the Wars in which they 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 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 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. 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
Frith of Forth and Clyde and yet he confesses 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Greeks and Hibernia among the Latins both of which are as I said acknowledg'd by Bishop Vsher himself 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 Vsher whom my Lord St. Asaph follows alledges 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. 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 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 Country under the name of Dalreudini and 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
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 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 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 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 produce any other Testimony save a Letter of Dovenaldus Oneil Prince of Vlster to Pope Iohn 22d wherein there is this passage Beside the Kings of lesser Scotland who all came originally from our greater Scotland And a Patent of Sigismund the Emperor 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 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 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 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 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 who sayes that about the Year 1016 Brianus King of Ireland was killed and a little thereafter 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 Duncan King of Scotland was killed and the son of Finlay succeeded in his Kingdom whom afterward he calls 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 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 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 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 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 it is equal in largeness to Wales and Scotland And elsewhere he says that 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 by a specifick word were called the Scotish Nation And Stanihurst in his Annotations on these 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 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 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 Sedulius flourish'd under Fergus 2d and 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 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 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 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 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 is forced to maintain that the Scotish Lion is born by several Irish Familes And the double Tressure tho anciently 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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