A DEFENCE OF THE ANTIQUITY OF THE Royal Line OF SCOTLAND.  
WITH A true Account when the Scots were governed 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 Churchyard. 1685.   

To the KING.  
SIR,  
DIvine Providence having suffered these Kingdoms to destroy one another for many Ages, in divided Monarchies; reserved their happy Union for the Merciful Royal Family, of which Your Majesty is now the Head: and mingled lawfully in their Veins, 
V. The last four pages of the Book.  all those many and different Bloods-Royal, which pretended to any Sovereignty in these your Dominions: designing thereby at once to reward the Virtue of Your Majesty's Predecessors, and to endear that Union to us, in preventing future Debates. In King james, Your Royal Grandfather, these Nations got a Monarch, who was acknowledged to be the Solomon of His Age: who excelled all His Contemporary Princes in 
* His own word.  Kingcraft; all his Ministers in Prudence; and all His Doctors in Learning. None of his Subjects understood the Law better, or observed 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 governed by a better King. After we had shown ourselves unworthy of such Monarches, 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 filled with Your Sacred Majesty, whose Abilities Your Royal Brother esteemed so much, that He shared 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 Money: 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 blamed 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 Sovereigns 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 resolved to make the defence of Your meanest Privileges 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 managed 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 Rhetoric so Polite and Comical, that if the Reasons do not convince, yet the Humour and Style may charm, and please, even some of those against whom it is designed. 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 biased 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: Although, for the Reasons following, I cannot but dislike his unnecessary Undertaking, and unseasonable and partial Management of a National Debate, which 
* Ja. 6. Par. 20. c. 9  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 Fanatic, 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 employing 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 disparaged, being, that the Presbyterians, and particularly Blondel, urged from our Historians, that we had a Church for some Years without Bishops: it seemed neither just nor fit, that any Episcopal Author should have magnified so highly the meanest Argument that ever was used 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 Laics in all our Country, who had heard of it; nor with one, even of these few, who had valued it: and so this Author may be said, rather to have suggested a new Argument, than to have answered an old One: For they urge now nothing to us, save places of Scripture; resolving to have their Presbytery, juris Divini: knowing that nothing less can secure them, in opposing the Laws of the Kingdom. And what can the Presbyterians think of their other Arguments, which they value much. Since this, which they valued so little, is thought of such force, by a learned Bishop, as to deserve a whole Book, the cutting off of 44 Kings, and the offending a Nation of Friends. It is also very remarkable, that the learned Doctor Hammond, a great Champion of Episcopacy, owns the Antiquity of our Nation; and answers fully that Argument, without overturning the truth of our History, or wronging the Antiquity of our Royal-Line: whereas Baxter the Presbyterian urges this Citation, and yet agrees with this Author in opposing the Antiquity of our History; approving what is said by Cambden and Usher; and in a Letter to the Duke of Lauderdale asserting the lateness of our settlement here. Which shows, that there is no necessity lying upon such as own Episcopacy, to wrong the Antiquity of our Kings and Nation. But how the necessity of a private corner of a remote Country in Ecclesiâ constituendâ, could wrong the general practice of the Church; is as little to be understood, as it is undeniable, that many thousands in japan, and China, were converted by Presbyters, before Bishops were sent thither. And since it cannot be denied, but that those who ordained our Presbyters were Bishops; it necessarily follows, that Episcopacy was settled in the Christian Church before we had Presbyters or Culdees: or else, if these who ordained our Presbyters were not Bishops, the practice of that Church, whereby our Presbyters were ordained, should have been impugned, and not the Authority of our Histories, and the Antiquity of our Royal-Line overturned. And though this Reverend and Learned Author could prove, that we were not settled here, before the Year 503, yet that could not answer the Argument: for the Culdees might have been settled before that time in this Country, where we now live, though amongst the Picts; for it cannot be denied but the Picts were settled in this Country before that time. And when our Historians say that the Abbots of Icolm-kill had Jurisdiction over all the Bishops of the Province; that is to be understood, as Beda observes, more inusitato; and my Lord St. Asaph himself well remarks these words, and gives a full and clear vindication of the passages of Beda in the 173, and following Pages; and might have rested therein, and needed not to have been driven to seek a new Answer in overturning the Antiquity of our Nation. Many examples can be given of Jurisdiction of Presbyters, and even of Deacons over Bishops in the Canon Law and History. So that this instance from our Historians makes nothing against Episcopacy. And latter Historians meeting with these ambiguous words in our Annals, De signatus, Electus, Ordinatus, were by a mistake induced to appropriate these words to the formal Ceremony of Ordination and Imposition of Hands. And I find, by the Bishop's Concession, 
* Pag. 169, 170. 171.  that the Abbess Hilda did elect and send forth such of her Monks, as she thought fit to be ordained: which is all that our Guldees, and ancient Monks did. Thus a King may be said to make one a Bishop, or a Mother to have made one of her Sons a Churchman; which answer, the learned Nicol, a zealous friend to Episcopacy, thought sufficient to elide Blondel's Arguments from our Historians, without denying the Antiquity of our Nation, or troubling himself with our 
* See his late Book, entitled, Les pretendus reformees convanious du Schism, p. 547. 548, 549, 550.  Culdees. And if Beda had heard that the Presbyters did ordain Bishops, he had remarked it as a most unusual thing, having marked that the Abbots had jurisdiction over Bishops, they being but Presbyters; such an Ordination being much more extraordinary, than such a Jurisdiction. And might not my Lord St. Asaph as well have inveighed against Gildas and the British Historians, because he says 
* Pag. 89.  that Churchmen were ordained by the consent of the Bishops and the rest of the Presbyters, from which Presbyterians, and particularly the same, Blondel 
† Pag. 72, 73.  infers a parity betwixt Bishops and Presbyters. And from which it appears, that dangerous Consequences should not be drawn from the dubious and heedless expressions of old Authors, living in rude Times and Places: and from all which we might have been secure, that my Lord St. Asaph would have concurred with the wise answer, which Spotswood, Archbishop of St. Andrews (with whom the learned Hammond agrees) gave to that silly Argument, without affronting him as a betrayer of the Episcopal Cause; and caressing our fanatics by that unwarrantable and dangerous assertion; that in consequence thereof they might reasonably conclude, that when they covenanted against Episcopacy, they had only used their own right; and thrown out that, which was a confessed innovation; in order to the restoring of that, which was their primitive Government. For it does not follow, that because our Church in its infancy and necessity was without Bishops for some Years; that therefore it was reasonable for Subjects, to enter into a Solemn League and Covenant, without, and against the consent of their Monarch; and to extirpate Episcopacy settled then by Law, and by an old prescription of 1200 Years at least.  
3. Precedency being one of the Jewels of the Crown and one of the chief Glories of Princes; and all who treat on that Subject confessing, that the King of Great-Britain, as King of Scotland, is the most ancient Monarch in Europe, the Line of other Kingdoms having been often interrupted, whereas ours never was; it seems a great injury to our Kings, to have their Line shortened, so as thereby to postpone them, to many others; and if this Author's Arguments prove any thing, they must prove that our Kings cannot instruct their Antiquity, till Malcolm the 3d's Time: and so our Kings will be amongst the last of all Crowned-Heads. Nor is it one of the least Arguments, which prevail with us, to hazard all for our Royal-Line, that we have been so long Subjects to it, and happy under it: and therefore whoever shortens it, lessens (though without design) the influence of our Kings, and endangers the Succession. And since 
* Pag. 2.  Luddus owns, that he durst not deny the British Descent from Brutus, lest he might thereby wrong the Majesty of the English Nation; I admire, that any of the Subjects of Great Britain did not think it a degree of Lese-Majesty, to injure and shorten the Royal-Line of their Kings.  
4. If this injury had been done to Kings, or to a Nation, when they were Enemies to Episcopacy, as the Obligation was, so the fault had been less. But to inveigh against our Royal-Line, after King james had made the settlement of Episcopacy his business; King Charles had died for it; and our late Sovereign of Glorious Memory, had been more disquieted by the Schismatical opposition made to it, than by all his other concerns, seems very unkind. And though this learned and worthy Author, upon design to make us sit down quietly under these Injuries, seems to gratify us, by the Compliment, That we, since the Writing of our Histories, needed not such helps, as old and fabulous Romances: telling us, that we have excelled most other Nations, in Arts, and Arms; and especially in the Purity of Religion, abating only the blemish, which we have contracted by too easy a belief of these Fictions, which he designs to Refute. Yet, since no Peer in England, though a Subject, would have allowed this Author to tell him, that albeit, he be now a brave and generous Person; his Predecessors were lately pilfering barbarous Robbers and Vagabonds, and the History of his Family a fabulous Romance. How should he have imagined, that our Kings and Nation (how gentle soever) would have thought, that the Justice done them in this Age (and for which we thank the Bishop of St. Asaph) should have compensed the Injuries done to their Predecessors?  
But it is probable, that my Lord St. Asaph has not, on the one hand, known the Grounds which we here urge for our Antiquity, and that our nice Jealousy for our Honour, on the other hand, magnifies too much to us such injuries, of which we are naturally very sensible: and therefore, I hope, by his Lordship's aquiescence, the result of the Debate will be, that he will see that our Royal-Line and Nation are more ancient than he imagined them to have been: and that we will remain convinced, that his Book was not dictated by malice, and National Humour.  
My Design is not to convince my Readers, that I am Learned, but that my Cause is just: and therefore I use no more Citations, even from the Books I know, than may prove or illustrate my Positions. And, not being the first aggressor, I expect the favour which is due to Self-defence: For of all things, I hate unnecessary Debates; and I admire St. Pâul, for saying, 
* Acts 24. 12.  And they neither found me in the Temple disputing with any Man. Debates generally starve Charity, feed Self-love, and incline even very good Men to more partiality, than I hope can be charged in this Debate, upon  
Your Lordship's most faithful and humble Servant, Geo. Mackenzie.   

King CHARLES' the 1st his Speech to the Scottish Parliament at Edinburgh, Aug. 19 1641.  
I Cannot doubt of such real Testimonies of your Affections, for the maintenance of that Royal Power which I enjoy, after 108 Descents, and which you profess to maintain, and to which your National Oath doth oblige your, etc.   

A Defence of the Antiquity OF THE Royal-Line OF SCOTLAND, With a true Account, when the Scots were governed by Kings in the Isle of Britain.  
In Answer to the Bishop of St. Asaph.  
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 one Sovereign, about 330 years before Christ. And their Histories being received with great applause for many hundreds of years, by Historians, Antiquaries, and Critics 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 governed 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 urged against that Episcopacy, which I so much reverence; I, as his Majesty's Advocate, design only to prove, that in both these Points the Bishop has (though I hope without design) injured 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 inferred 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 Critics, Antiquaries, and Historians, the best judges 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 entreat my Readers to lay all these together, and not to judge by parcels, which is not 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 itself remits its ordinary Exactness, to comply with the necessity of Human Affairs, allowing Domestic 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 proved by the Testimony of Witnesses. Reason likewise has obliged Men to presume, that a Nation ought as much to be believed 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 satisfy 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 biased; and at best, one Witness proves not. Nor are Strangers obliged 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 satisfied with probable Grounds. Domestic Testimonies infer only a probable Belief; and though an Oath were interposed, that could create no more than a moral Certainty.  
As the former Proposition is founded upon just Reason, so all Historians have been believed, and the Histories of all Nations have been received 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, aliisque publicis privatisque erant Monumentis, incensa urbe pleraque periere. Liv. Imit. 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 perished 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 jewish History also had no Historical Warrant for the first 2000 years, but Tradition, and after that time, their Transactions were mentioned in very few Foreign Histories: And the Annals of their own Priests were thought good Historical Foundations, in the opinion of 
* Lib. 1. against Appion.  josephus, 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, Domestic Witnesses, but especially when these are fortified by the concurring Testimonies of Foreign Authors, probable Reasons, and the acquiescence of Mankind. And though 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, though very ancient.  
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 received 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 proved 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 formed 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 josephus did cite to confirm that of the Jews, when it was challenged by Appion the Grammarian, upon the same grounds that ours is now quarrelled by the Bishop of St. Asaph? And albeit the authority of a single Historian, might be suspected after his History is written, and that than his Warrants might be called 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 jeffrey of Monmouth, and some British Historians do, in the opinion of the Bishop of St. Asaph, and their own best Critics. 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 read with great pleasure, and cited with great honour by Critics, 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 affirmed 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 raised 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, etc.  Bishop Usher (picqued by Dempster's Severity, to his Uncle Stanihurst) gathered together, an undigested, and formless lump of all Writers, good and bad, from which, he says, that Discretion being used, a History might be formed. 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 confused Rabble in Rank and File, with some pleasant Reflections.  
I might then forbear to trouble myself 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, mustered up by the Bishop against us, which being removed, leave our History in its former lustre and splendour. But for serving my King and Country, and satisfying my Reader more entirely, I am resolved 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 showing that our Tradition is very well founded. 2. By showing, 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 Britain's, 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 Balance with those who stand for us. 4. That our Histories are confirmed by the authority of ancient Foreign Authors. 5. That our Histories have been believed and applauded by the best of late Historians, Critics, 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, the Druids, who taught them Sciences, and Letters, and who were so famous, That 
* Disciplina in Britannia Reperta, atque 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. Come 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 derived their first Learning from them. And all Histories acknowledge, That these used 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 inclined by the severity of their former Discipline: as the Therapeutae did for the same Reason become the first Anchorites in Egypt; and so it was easy for them to inform the Monasteries of what they knew so well. And this Hint is confirmed by a very clear passage in Leslies' Preface to his History, who being a Bishop himself, should be believed 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 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, etc. Our Predecessors also being descended from the Spanish Gallicks, or Galicians, as is acknowledged 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 preserved until the 5th Century; at which time we got Monasteries; in which (as I shall hereafter prove) were written and preserved the Annals of our Nation. And since nothing but great Improbabilities, and fundamental Inconsistencies, should be allowed to refute a History already received. 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 designed to preserve that Fame, which they preferred to Life itself: And that the Kings likewise, whose Authority and Right was much reverenced 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 certainly in Ireland for some time: and that we came from them, after the time, in which Cambden, and Usher 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 though Lycurgus would not suffer his Laws to be written, yet they were preserved in the Memories of Men, for more than 600 Years, as Plutarch observes; and we and other Nations have preserved 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, though there were no History yet extant, we should easily have known that the Saxons, Danes, and Normans conquered the Britons, and altered the Race of their Kings. That Ireland had many little Monarches, till they were swallowed 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 Sceptre was ever swayed 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, and so remarkable, that Men might have taught the same to their Children in a week's 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 allowed 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 same People, living under the uninterrupted succession of the same Royal-Line; Whereas they were obliged to suppress the Traditions and Memorials of the People whom they had conquered.  
5. As no Man is presumed 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 settled, against all opposition to this very day: Our having put the first stop to the Roman Greatness; our having beat the far more numerous Britan's, though defended by strong Walls, and stronger Romans: All which cannot be denied to have been done by us, and are equally noble, whether we were settled here or not, when we did them. After those controverted Times, it cannot be denied, 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 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 ascribed to us. And to crown all, we have generously contributed all that was in our power, to support that Ancient and Royal Family (so unparallelled for its antiquity) by which we were animated, and instructed to do all those great Actions, till they are now become the Monarches 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 preserved; 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 fordoes 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 fordoes own time, his Relation cannot but be credited. His words are, That the King being placed in the Marble-Chair, the Crown upon his Head, and the Sceptre in his Hand, and the Nobility being set below Him, a Venerable old High-landed Gentleman stepped out, and bowing the Knee, expressed himself to the King in the High-land Language thus; God bless you King Alexander, Son of Alexander, Son of William, etc. And so carried up the Genealogy to Fergus the First: Which Custom was most solemnly used at the Coronation of King Charles the Martyr, at which time their Pictures were exposed, 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 lest Fordon is to be believed, 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 designed from their Fathers, Grandfathers, and very many Generations upwards; as is a sufficient Historical Proof of Tradition, though 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.  that as the History of most Nations was preserved by their Priests and Churchmen: so ours would be very ready to oblige the Kings, under whom, and the People among whom they lived, 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 Churchmen, besides those which we may pretend to have been transmitted to them by the Druids. And the Bishop himself acknowledges that the Monastery of Hylas, called by us Icolm-kill, (that is Hylas, 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.  governed by three Scotish-Bishops, Aidan, Finan, and Colman; and Abercorn, mentioned by 
† Lib. 4. cap. 26.  Beda; and Melross, the Chronicle whereof begins where Beda ends, as their History now printed shows: 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 called their Register, or Chartulary, containing the Records relating to their private securities; and another called their Black-book, containing an account of the memorable things which occurred in every Year. And as it is strongly presumable, that our Historians would have compiled 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, archdeacon 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, called 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 settled 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 
* 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, etc. 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.  citys Verimund for an account of the Scots and Picts, and after he also 
† Pag. 94.  citys him for the Miracle of St. Andrews in Hungus' 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 mentioned, and particularly, out of the second Book of Verimund. Sir Richard Baker citys this Verimund, among the Authors out of whom he compiled his History; and with him he citys joannes Campbellus, who (he says) wrote the History of the Scots from the Origine of the Nation till the Year 1260, in which he lived: And also Turgot, who (he says) wrote our Annals from the beginning till the Year 1098, in which he lived, (and him likewise Hollinshed citys); 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 lived in the Year 1360. Two of which three last, we have reason to think were Scots-men, and have been called Englishmen, only because they lived in the Counties which now belong to England, but then certainly belonged to us; and if they be Englishmen, they are yet the more credible Witnesses for us. And as the worthy Baker says, he compiled 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 carried to England by Edward the First, as shall be hereafter observed: Nor can it be answered, that he cited them at second-hand from Both, or Buchannan, for else he had cited the other Authors whom they cite, such as Richardus de sancto victore, Fordon, Major, etc. 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 dreamed by Fordon and Boethius, but that Verimund was seen and considered 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 Learned Englishman, hath rested. And 
† Pag. 100, & pag. 460.  Holinshed says, that Verimund wrote a Book, De Regibus Scotorum. Nor can it be denied 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 
* Et Lib. 7.  his Dedication to King james 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 followed them in writing his History: Especially since he is by Erasmus that great Critic, admired 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 adventured 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 jovius, a very famous Foreign Historian, who in his Description of Scotland, says, 
* Asservantur in arcanis templi armariis vetustissimorum Annalium Codices atque item latae membranae, ipsorum Regum subscriptae manibus aureisque vel cereis sigillorum imaginibus obsignatae; quibus antiquae leges edictaque & finium ac Civitatum Iura publica continentur.  That in jona (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 sealed 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 Churchmen. 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 appealed 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 published till 1526, and 
† Lib. 7.  Boethius himself informs us, That the Records from which he formed 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 believed our account, and produced a Manuscript for it, which I now cite, and use as an accessary 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 alleging 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 believed 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 Precedent Spotwood's Books, and was given by Lewis Cant to Major General Lambert, and by him to Colonel Fairfax; which Book King Charles the first had ransomed 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 compiled his History: Which Book of Pasley, together with the famous Book of Pluscardin, Buchannan says he had, and frequently citys: and that there were such Books is known to the whole Nation. And I myself have seen in the Learned Sir Robert Sibbald's Library (to whom this Nation owes very much) a very old Abridgement of the Book of Pasley (which Book Bp Usher himself also citys) agreeing in every thing with our Histories, and which was extracted per venerabilem virum joannem Gibson Canonicum Glasguensem, & Rectorem de Renfrew, Anno 1501. And two other old Manuscripts, the one called, Excerpta de Chronicis Scotiae, & Scotichronico, which comes to the Reign of King james the 2d. and belonged to Doctor Arbuthnot Physician to King james the 5th; and this proves that there were Chronica different from fordoes. 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 jedburgh, in Anno 1533, containing an Abridgement of our History, and whereof Doctor Sibbald has another Copy. And there is another old Manuscript written by Ventonius yet extant, which Buchannan also citys, and follows.  
Since the Writing of these Sheets, I have seen a very old Manuscript brought from Icolmkill, written by Carbre Lifachair, who lived six Centuries before St. Patrick, and so about our Saviour's 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 Britan's. 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 learned 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 preserved as Sacred there.  
I have also seen another old Manuscript, wherein the Dalreudini Albanach are considered as settled here six Generations before Eric, whom Usher calls the Father of our Kings. I find also in it, that Angus Tuerteampher reigned 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 settled 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 deserved 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 proved to have drawn theirs, viz. our ancient Annals and Registers.  
Fordon was no Monk, as the 
* Pag. 26. Pref.  Bishop is pleased to call him, and we had no such Monastery as Fordon: but he was venerabilis vir dominus johannes Fordon Presbyter, and is called a Monk by the Bishop (who studies still his own conveniency) to make the World believe he was inclined to lie, as the Monks are said to have been in that Age; and to show 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 esteemed, 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 preserved several of the Manuscripts of that Monastery: And both these Continuations have drawn out our Histories to the Reign of King james the 2d. And it is not to be imagined that the Monasteries would have esteemed 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 citys frequently through his Book Chronica, & alia Chronica, and Beda, and follows him exactly: he citys also Adamnanus, who lived 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 citys 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 jeffrey, 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 authentic Letters, Objections, Apologies, and Answers made and signed by Edward 1. and his Parliament, and the Scotish Nobility, produced 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 citys many other considerable old Records: He writes in a good Style, and with good Judgement: and the reason why this Work was not printed, was not because it deserved 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 enough; which also occasioned the perishing of many of our excellent Manuscripts. But why should the Bishop object to us Fordon his not being printed, since he citys 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 Bishop's Book, and of the Authors cited by him, that Fordon is preferable to all those old Legends, and most of those Authors which he citys against us, venerable Beda only excepted, who is still on our side.  
joannes 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 remembered 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 john Major a full account and Elogium is given by the Learned Launoy Academiae Parisionsis illustrata, Tom. 2. pag. 652, 653. & sequent.  
One of the most accurate Writers in this Age 
* Vicfort memoirs des Ambassadeurs.  says, That the talon 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 Rapine, in their exact Essays concerning History, have preferred none to him, save Mariana the Jesuit, whom all Men know to be far inferior; but they prefer Mariana, because Buchannan was a Protestant. joseph Scaliger says of Buchannan and Us, 
Imperii fuerat Romani Scotia limbs,  
Romani Eloquii, Scotia finis erit.  And 
* Pref. new Translat. of Plutarch's Lives.  Mr. Dryden also my Friend, whom I esteem a great Critic, as well as Poet, prefers Buchannan to all the Historians that ever wrote in Britain. And though I approve as little of Buchannan's Politics 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 Life of Fergus the First, refers to our old Annals, but he citys 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 allowed 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 Archbishop Spotswood are Men who have written our History with great judgement and truth, and it cannot be imagined that they who were indeed banished for Loyalty, and suffered the loss of all for their Persuasion, 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 
* ja 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 noble. 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 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 called 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 Eulogies of the greatest Wits in Italy, how much they esteemed him for his extraordinary Learning, and Parts. I may add to these, David Camerarius de fortitudine, etc. Scotorum, besides Richardus de sancto victore, and Cornelius Hibernicus, both which wrote our ancient Histories, the last of them lived in the year 1140. And they are both followed 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 authentic 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 controversy concerning our Antiquity; and that what they have said, has been universally believed 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 followed jeffrey; neither of which is so. Tho I confess the contrivance of this untruth was pretty, 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 deposed one after another, giving for the reason of their knowledge, that they had seen what they deposed.  
If all these Manuscripts, which I have cited were extant, I doubt not but the Author himself would acknowledge 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 considered that Papers are very subject to be lost, and to perish; have therefore allowed, that if it can be proved, 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, josephus, 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, proved 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 proved by very many Persons, considerable for their Devotion and Quality. 2. There are other Manuscripts yet extant, some whereof I myself have seen, and have formerly named, all agreeing with the tenor of our History, and long prior to Luddus' 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 Knowledge, and have been received with great applause in the World, and are also confirmed 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 perished, that therefore the Faith of their History should not perish with them.  
Lest it might be thought that we ourselves caused to destroy those Records we now cite, to prevent further inquiry, and to show how much harder it is for us than other Nations, to be called to such an account: I shall desire Strangers to be informed 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, resolved to abolish all memory of our Nation: and of which we accused him before the Pope, and he did not deny it. 2. When our Monks flying to Rome at the Reformation, carried with them their Records. 3. By Cromwell, who carried 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 acknowledged, 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 absolved a Man unjustly, though that Jury consisted of the meanest Men of the Nation, yet their Verdict cannot be questioned 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 redargued, otherways than by the Testimonies of far more unsuspected Historians, who agree in what they assert against us, and who are received 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 overrun by our Countrymen at that time to a degree to make them passionate enough for disabling 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 Judge 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, possessed 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 inferior 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 settled 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 settled 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 jeffreys' 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, called Scotland: which I hope (says he) no wise Man will readily deny. And Caixton in his old Chronicle of England, tells, that the King of the Scots assisted Cassibelan King of the Britain's against Julius Caesar: which shows that our Antiquity was believed. And Balaeus, a most famous English Chronologist, says, that 
* Bal. Pref. part post.  the Scots wrote, etc. 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 forced 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 skilful amongst the Scots, affirmed 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 Sound to Brutus. And this is so far acknowledged by succeeding Ages, that Edward the First did upon that account claim the superiority to England over us, as younger Brother to Locrine 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 foreseeing the unanswerable strength of this Argument, acknowledges this Superiority to be a most unjust Pretention, 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 considered 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, which proves not only that this old Tradition was believed, but that Fordon was not the inventor of it. For Girald lived 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 governed by Captains, and thereafter governed by the Kings mentioned in our History. 4. There are no positive Authorities produced against us, condescending expressly 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.  Usher, who affirms, that when Neil Neilialagh was King of Ireland, and Constantius was Emperor, Muredus King of Ulster had six Sons, who possessed 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 mentioned 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 complained 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 conquered Albania, now called 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 inclined. Fergus (says that Author) the Son of Eric, was the first of the offspring of Chonar, who obtained 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 reigned 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 approved History must be overturned by Legends, and Genealogies.  
Upon which passages I beg leave to make these few Reflections. First, that (besides, that these Authors lived 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 shows them neither faithful nor learned Chronologists. The first nameless Author, writer of the Life of S. Patrick, makes our King to have been one of the Sons of Mured, whom Usher conjectures to have been Reuther, and he must have lived in 360; for Constantius reigned then, and Mured's Son lived in his Reign. jocelin 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 jocelin. 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 called 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 promised the Kingdom not to Fergus himself, but to one of his Succession, and therefore finding none of our Kings named 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 irreconcilable, what Warrants can he or they have to contradict our positive History? 
* De Primord. pag. 611.  And Bishop Usher citys another Author of St. Patrick's Life, Meyerus, who tells us that after St. Patrick ' s Voyage about this Isle, he turned 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 happened in Anno 360; for Beda lived in Anno 730, and how can it be imagined 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 behoved 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 reigned within more than 40 Years after Constantius. Luddus and Cambden assert us to have settled here, under Fergus the Second, in the Reign of Honorius, at which time Fergus the Second did reign. Usher 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.  
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 settled not till the year 503, to assert that the Picts filled all the Northern Parts of Britain, and that those Picts were a ruder sort of Britain's, 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 foretells will weigh down the Reasons he brings for his Conjecture. And as he, contrary to the universally received opinion, denies the Picts to be Schythians, though they were really so, he makes the Scots to be Schythians, though really they were not so.  

* De Primord. cap. 11. init.  Usher 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 Emperor's 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 settled 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 St. Asaph 
* Cap. 1.  confesses us to have first fixed 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 graham's Dike, called 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 irreconcilable Authors; and yet by these only, is the Antiquity of of our Kings and Nation controverted. But to confirm fully our History from julius Caesar's time, and to show 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. The venerable Beda, though 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, etc. 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, Britain's, Scots, Picts, and Latins: and then proceeds to tell, that the Britain's were the first possessors, and possessed 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 settled in Britain. 3. In Britannia Britonibus & Pict is gentem tertiam addiderunt, they added a third Nation to the Britain's 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 settled the Scots and Picts in his first Chapter with the Britain's; he proceeds in the second Chapter to settle the fourth Nation, viz. the Latins 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 entered upon by the Romans, till Julius Caesar' s time. And having described the Wars betwixt these three Nations and the Roman Emperors, in a due gradation, marking every period of time through the Reign of their consecutive Emperors; and how at last the Romans had abandoned the Island, and Aetius the Roman Consul, had refused the Petition of the miserable Britain's, so often defeated by the Scots and Picts: he in the 14 Cap. relates how the Britain's 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 settled 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 Britain's against the Scots and Picts, because the Britain's were deserted by the Romans, and consequently the Saxons having been brought in Anno 449, it unanswerably follows, that the Scots were settled here, and made a third Nation, long before the 503, as the Bishop of St. Asaph alleges, at which time he makes us to have settled here very cunningly, but not sincerely, upon design to make us later than the English. As also it appears very clearly that the Scots settled here even before julius Caesar's time, for after Beda (who proceeds exactly according to the Periods of Time) had settled 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 described what these Romans did in the Isle, and how they fought with the Picts and Us under their subsequent Emperors, without ever speaking again of the entry of the Scots, as having settled them in the first Chapter, before Caesar's time. Nor is the time altered in any other Period; and he is so careful of the Period of time, that he subjoins to his Work a Chronological Recapitulation, which is very exact. And he being a Saxon, 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 expelled by the Romans and Britain's. 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, than one Author behoved to give another, and he a third, & sic in infinitum. Nor did ever any Man before him require an Authority in so ancient an Author: and this Answer is a full proof of the Bishop's Conviction, who being absolutely gravelled here, he grows as angry at Beda, as at our Historians, and tells, disdainfully, that this might be true for aught 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 nonsense. For Beda speaks here of the preterite, 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 unconquered 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 vexed 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, 
‖ 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 called Transmarine, because they lived, and were settled 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 settled in Britain whilst the Romans fought against the Picts and Scots, and consequently before they were called by the Picts to defend them against the Saxons, as is alleged 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 public a thing, which concerned his own, as well as his Neighbour Nation. But if the Scots had settled in anno 503, Beda could not have called them 
* Cap. 1.  Prisci incolae, and reckoned them amongst the ancient Inhabitants. For a Man living in his time, might have told him, that his Father saw the Scots called 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 lived within 200 years of him? and since both wrote the same Actions in almost the same words? Or how can it be imagined, 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 lived not without the Isle, but on the other side of the Wall, which made an Isle. From which it follows necessarily that in Gildas' time, the Scots dwelled not without the Isle of Britain; and Gildas having been born in Anno 493, as is said in the Calculation prefixed to that 
* 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 concerned. And albeit he says once, speaking of us, that Hiberni revertuntur domum. Yet that was spoke of us as settled here, and as being Irish by extraction, as shall be hereafter cleared. Nor must our Histories which are so positive and unanimous, be overturned 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 knowledge 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 conquered. But our being engaged 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, fight here, cannot but seem Raillery 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 joined 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 Panegyric to Constantine in praise of his Father Constantius: 
Eumenius.  who preferring the Victory Constantius had over the Britain's, to that which julius Caesar had over them; says, 
* Pag. 258.  that the Britain's at the time Caesar conquered them, were a rude Nation, being only used to fight against the Picts, and Irish of the British Country, Enemies half naked, and so easily yielded to the Roman Arms and Ensigns. By which Citation, we contend that it is proved, that in the time of julius 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 used to fight with the Picts, against the Britain's, 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 they are of the Genitive, all disinterested Men, who understand the Latin, will confess. And Cambden himself, though 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 lived. But, as any Citation may be thus answered; so if he had not spoken with relation to the time of julius Caesar, the Comparison and Compliment had no great force. The Learned Usher likewise objects not this to Buchannan, which shows also his Acquiescence. 2. If this, Natio Rudis, had been the same thing with Soli Britanni; and if the sense must be, as his Lordship says, a Rude Nation, the Britain's; than not only it had been superfluous, but inconsistent with true sense. For how can the same thing be copulated with it-self? and though 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. And the great 
* In not. in lib. 4. Tibull.  joseph 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 joseph 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 designed his words should have been construed, as the Bishop has construed them; so great an Orator would certainly have said, Soli Britanni Natio ad hoc etiam tunc rudis, etc. And in this case the words had been clear, and the ingenious Bishop needed not, in translating them, to have been forced 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 Britain's, a Nation used to no other Enemies but Picts and Irish: Whereas Constantius overcame Carausius, who had got a Roman Legion on his side, etc. But by his Lordship's favour, the Comparison runs strong enough thus, according to Buchannan's Construction. Caesar overcame the Britain's when they were yet a rude Nation, used only to fight against the Picts and Irish who lived upon the Land, or Isle of Britain: but Constantius overcame them after they had been long trained up in War. And certainly a Nation is a far more formidable Enemy after their being long trained up in War, than when yet rude, and unexperienced; though 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 preferred in the way I have mentioned. 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 sense, they confirm his Chronological Account, of our being in this Isle before julius Caesar's time: And the Bishop must still remember, that he cannot overturn our received 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 shows also that in Constantius' time, which was about the Year 300, the Britain's were assueti, used 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 Britain's 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 allegeth. I prove the contrary by Lucretius. 
Nam quid Britannum Coelum differre putamus, etc.  
Claudianus de quarto consulatu Honorii  
Terribilis Mauro, debellatorque Britanni Littoris.   
A further Confirmation of this arises from the same Eumenius, in this same Panegyric; where speaking of Constantius' 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 though Usher 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 Usher; that being contrary to the universally received opinion of all the Learned, 
* Guidus pancirollus comment. ad notitiam imperii occident. p. 159. where he citys 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 lived very near Eumenius' time, and who almost speaks in the same words with him, Latinus Pacatius Drepanius, who in his Panegyric to Theodosius the elder, who lived Anno 367, compliments him upon 
* Pag. 248. Edit. Plantin. Redactum ad paludes suas Scotum.  having reduced the Scots to their Marshes, showing 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, dwelled in in Scotland, as their own Country; else it had been impertinent and untrue to say, that the Scots were reduced to their own Marshes.  
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 julos.   
And 
* Lib. 10. Epig. 44.  Martial, who lived 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 confirmed from 
* Comment. ad vitam Agricolae.  Lipsius, who calls him Galgacus Scotus. This is also confirmed 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 learned History of the Highways 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 Highways. 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 Soldiers, telling them that they had never been conquered, servitutis expertes, & nullae ultra terrae. Nor can any thing agree better with our being still called one of the two unconquered Nations, by Gildas, Beda, and others. This is yet further cleared by another Passage in this 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, etc.  Tacitus says, The third Year of the War discovered new Nations, which Agricola conquered, 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 Britain: For Tacitus says, that the third Year opened new Nations: whereas Agricola knew the Britan's 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 grossly, 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 by Tacitus, that after the Romans passed 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 returned to the Borders of the Horesti, where finding the Fleet in the Frith of Tay, where he had left it, he Embarked 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 Battle; and Eskdale an inland Country, very remote from all Sea. 3. Tacitus writing of us, under the name of Caledonians, mentions the Marshes of those who fought, which were appropriated to us by Eumenius and Pacatius, as I formerly observed. 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 confirmed by the learned 
* Lex. Geograph. verb. Horresti.  Ferrarius a stranger. And to this I may add, that we have to this day, a Barony, called Galdgirth, or the Girth of Galdus; and ten great Stones in Galloway, called King Galdus' Monument: Marks of Antiquity far preferable to any Manuscript; as the testimony or consent of a whole Nation, is to that of one private Person. Two of which Arguments are used 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 judgement 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 learned to be answered by any Adversary.  Scaliger.  
Ille Britannos ultra noti littora ponti,  
Et caeruleos Scoto-Brigantes dare Romuleis,  
Colla catenis jussit, & ipsum nova Romanae,  
jura securis tremere oceanum.  

* 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 called Picti, for painting their Bodies; but never for painting their Shields. I know likewise, that Hadrianus junius reads Cute-Brigantes; but this would be ill verse: for the first syllable in Cute, is by its 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.  
Ego nolo Caesar esse,  
Ambulare per Britannos,  
Scoticas pati pruinas.  
For why should we read, Scythicas? since Adrian was never in Scythia; but did fight against the Scots: and caused make the vallum Adriani.  
2. Why should not rather Scotia, than Scythia be joined to Britannia? as 
* Cap. p. 723. the primord.  Usher argues most justly upon the like occasion. 3. the Pruinae Scoticae were famous about that time: for Claudian hath, 
* C. 16. p. 728.  Ille Caledoniis posuit qui castra pruinis.  
And Claudian does so expressly and so frequently speak of the Scots as settled 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 Panegyric, upon the third consulat. of Honorius, he compliments him upon the victory of his Gandfather Theodosius, who behoved to come into Britain long before the Year 382, wherein Theodosius his Father was chosen Emperor.  
Facta tui numerabat avi, quem littus adusti  
Horrescit Lybii, ratibusque impervia Thule.  
Ille leves Mauros, nec falso nomine Pictos,  
Edomuit, Scotumque vago mucrone secutus.  
Fregit hyperboreas remis audacibus undas.  
And in the fourth Consulat of the same Honorius. 
Ille Caledoniis posuit qui castra pruinis.  
— maduerunt Saxone fuso  
Orcades, incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule.  
Scotorun cumulos flevit glacialis jerne.   
And de bello Getico, he speaks of the Roman Legion that returned from fight with the Picts, and us; (of which 
* Bed. Eccles. Hist. l. 1. c. 12.  Beda makes express mention.) 
Venit & extremis legio praetenta Britannis,  
Quae Scoto dat fraena truci, ferroque notatas  
Perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras.   
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 man Conquest. 2. Since we have proved, by other Authors, that the Scots were settled here, it is proper and suitable to common sense, to apply the same to us only, as being the only Persons concerned in those Battles; 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 Panegyric of Sidonius Appollinaris. 
— Victricia Caesar  
Signa Caledonios' transvexit adusque Britannos.  
Fuderit & quamquam Scotum, & cum Saxone Pictum.   
As to which, all that cambden (much better acquainted with citing, than reasoning) can answer; is, 1. That the Poet here wrote a Compliment 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' Age, who lived Anno 480, 
* Gesner in verb. Sidonius.  as Gesner affirms, which was very near to Claudian's Time, who lived in 497, as the Bishop of 
* Pag. 8.  St. Asaph calculates: we must conclude, that it is the rather to be believed, that then the Scots lived here, for that is not inconsistent with History as the other is, and so should be believed, though the other be not. 2. There were Saxons living then in Zetland or Orknes, though they were not settled in Britain; as is clear by Claudian himself, who says— Maduerunt Saxone fuso Orcades.  
And whereas it is said, that — Flevit glacialis jerne,  
Does make the same applicable to Ireland, since jerna is called Ireland. To this it is answered, that, 1. It is clear, that there is a Country in Scotland, called jerna, 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 Battle was fought, than in that Kingdom where the Romans never fought any. And why did the Poet join jerna in the same lamentation with Caledonia? if he had not designed by it, to express jerna, 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 believed by the Ancients to be so, as is most clear by 
* Lib. 1. cap. 1.  Beda. 2. Though the Poet had understood Ireland, by jerne; yet it does not follow, that because Ireland lamented the loss of the Scots who were killed here; that therefore the Scots that were killed, were not the Scots that were planted in Scotland: since certainly, Ireland could not but have lamented even the death of Scots, who were settled here; as Scotland, and as the Scots here did lament very much the death of the Scots who were killed in Ireland in the late Massacre. And as the Bishop himself argues in the Case of the Panegyric above-cited, 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. applies this to us, and not to the Irish. And these Verses in the same Author, designed likewise to the praise of the same Theodosius, 
— Pictos  
Edomuit, Scotumque vaga mucrone secutus,  
Fregit hyperboreas remis audacibus andas.   
Are only applicable to the Scotish Colony settled in Ireland. For he magnifies Theodosius, Grandfather 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 used, can it be said, that Theodosius' Soldiers ever went to Ireland? that Ireland lies Northwest 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 Northwest Isles, or over Clyde, where it's formerly proved the Scotish Plantation first settled.  
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 Romans in orbem terrarum redactas. Tremit hos Scotia qua terris nihil debet.  Hegisippus, where he brings in Ben-gorion dissuading the jews 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 reduced 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 joined 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 joined 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. And certainly it agrees much more with the Author's Intention, to interpret these words so, Scotland, which owed 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 Usher, 
* 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 jews, that when the General of the Nations only came, these Nations resisted them; but when the Roman Emperors 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 discouraged upon the rebellion of the jews, and Vespasian coming to him, comforted him, by remembering him that some of his Captains had conquered all the Western World, France, Scotland, and the land of Tubal. And whereas, Usher, to lessen this Authority, is forced to allege, that Hegesippus' Works were spurious. This contradicts 
* Vid. cap. 27. l. 4. Euseb. Eccl. Hist.  Eusebius, who makes him to have lived, Anno Christi 160. And though Usher contends, that both these Authors must be late, because Hegesippus, who only citys Ben-gorion, names Constantinople, which changed not the name of Byzantium till about the beginning of the 4th Century. Yet the Answer is easy, viz. That this being a Translation from the Greek, the Translator has used the name that was best known in his own Time. And the English, and other Nations have acknowledged this to be the Work of Hegesippus, and translate it as such. Usher himself indeed is inclined 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 called Scotland in Vespasian's Time, who was elected Emperor 72 Years after Christ.  

* 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 alleged against them, says, 
* Tertul. l. advers. judeos, c. 7. Et Britannorum Romanis in accessa loca, Christo vero subdita: which Baronius applies 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 subdued by the Romans, yet willingly yielded to the Yoke of Christ. From which it is urged, 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 Britain's, 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 not be true, except the Scots, as well as the Picts, had been settled in the Isle at that Time. For a vagrant Company of Robbers, could not be called a Nation, or esteemed 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 settled, so must we have been. Nor can this be meant of the North and South Picts, though it were proved, that the Picts were distinguished into Northern and Southern. For these could no more be considered 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 looked upon Tertullian as a Juggler, for making one Nation appear two. 3. Our sense agrees better with Beda, who asserts positively, that from Reudas' Time, the Scots made a third Nation in the Isle of Britain, with the Britan's and Picts. 4. Selden, l. 2. c. 8. confesses, that the Scoti Pictique, 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 occasioned by a Tract of bygon Defeats; and this he elegantly expresses by the words, congery praeteritarum Cladium; which shows, that these he speaks of in the 360, were not the first of many overthrows that the Britain's 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 fixed and known Limits, demonstrates to all who understand the Roman Antiquities, that we were then a fixed and settled Nation, in the same Island with the Roman Provinces of the Britan's; the Sea, or any part of it, being never signified by their word Limbs.  

* Lib. 2. ad Jovian.  St. Jerome, in his Epistle to jovian, citys Porphire, who lived in the third Century, under Dioclesian, and so above 200 Years before the 503. His words are, Neither Britain a Province fertile 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.  Usher understands not the Scythians, but the Scots, because they are in this place joined to Britain: but though 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 applied to us, for we are joined to Britain; but Ireland is no more joined to Britain, than Scythia. And the same Jerome, 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 Jou.  That when he was young, he saw the Scots, a Nation of Britain, feed upon Man's Flesh. From which it is clear, that the Scots at that time dwelled in Britain, which agrees very well with Beda, who calls the Scots the third Britannic Nation. 
† Pref. L. in Iren.  And Selden calls the Scots and Picts, Gentes Britannicas, l. 2. c. 8. And this is further cleared, by his asserting, that Pelagius was of a Scotish Race, in the Neighbour-head of Britain; which proves clearly, as the learned 
* 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 punished for this Crime. Nor can their eating Man's Flesh in France be charged on us, but on the French, where this is said to be so publicly done, that St. Jerome could have seen it; and there is no Historian that ever charged 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?  
Another of the Reverend 
* Epiphanius in auchorato. P. 117. add par. Britanni, Scoti, quorum insula est Britannia.  Fathers of the Primitive Church, enumerating the Nations, which were descended from japhet, mentions the Britons and Scots, whose Isle is Britain. This shows, that there were Scots living in Britain in Epiphanius' Time, and so he proves not only our Antiquity, by his own Authority, but confirms and explains what was formerly urged from Jerome, in whose Time he lived, 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 lived, 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 then according to the Times wherein these Actions happened: for we see, that they who wrote, and lived 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 acknowledged by Usher, and the Authors he citys, that Ireland was peopled by the Scots, before julius Caesar's Time; and by their own Authors, whom that Bishop citys, they are said to have been so anciently there, that we do not know how many Ages they possessed that Isle before julius Caesar. And they being a very broody People, as all Northern Nations, and particularly they, and we are, could not but have multiplied so exceedingly, as to need relief, and evacuation by Colonies. And it can never be pretended, that the Irish did settle any other Colony save in Britain: though it be undeniable, that all those Northern Nations were very desirous and concerned 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 forced 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 julius Caesar? or the Bishop of St. Asaph's account, who makes us not to have settled here, till 503 Years after Christ. And though I esteem the Irish, yet I must remark, that our humour differs so much from theirs, that it may from thence appear, that we stayed 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' and ours, it is clear, that the Scots and Picts fought jointly against 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 craved against them: That the Saxons were called in, to defend the Britons, from the Scotish and Pictish Incursions: That they were called jointly, unconquered Nations. All which points prove, that they were equal in every thing; and why not then in their being equally settled here? And therefore, except it were clearly proved that the Scots were not settled and fixed here, as the Picts were; and that there were Authors produced, who living in these Times, declared, that in the Year 503, the Scots were first called to defend the Picts, as the Saxons are clearly proved to have been called 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 them jointly, 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 Britan's, who then possessed the Southern part of this Isle, were forced to build two Fences against them: The first betwixt Tyne and Solloway, which was called Adrian's Wall: And the second, by Severus, who having enlarged the Roman Conquest, built a second, betwixt Forth and Clyde, and called it by his own name. How then can it be imagined, that the Scots did not live on the other side of that Wall? for if they had lived 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 believed, if we consider, that if the Scots came from Ireland, in Corroughs, as the Bishop of St. Asaph alleges, from Gildas; then they might have landed upon the Britons side of the Wall; nay, and which is more, they could not conveniently have landed on the other side, except they had gone too far about, and crossed 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 julius Caesar's Time, for above 600 Years: and in those Ages, it is known, that there were not very convenient means fallen upon, for transporting Men, much less 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, stretch upon Timber, as we find them, and the Irish Sea, described by 
* Pag. 352.  Solinus, who lived near those Times, and writes, that Mare quod juvernam & Britanniam interfluit, undosum & inquietum toto in anno, nisi aestivis pauculis diebus, 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 behoved to return in the Wintertime, for it's presumed, they fought all Summer; and even then, they had not the choosing of their own fair Wether, but had just reason to be afraid that they would be chased away, as Robbers usually are; and as the Bishop of St. Asaph asserts they oftentimes 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 settled on the other side of Clyde, from which they might come every Year; which agrees also well with Beda's saying, That the Scots settled ad partem septentrionalem sinus Acluith, or Dumbriton; a narrow Sea, and called 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 designed 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 reigned Anno 1004. The Frith of Forth is called Mare Scotiae, the Sea of Scotland, and that is mentioned as a Law in old observance; it must be concluded, that this Country where we live, was called Scotland, long before the Year 1000, as Bishop Usher asserts. For since Tacitus and Beda say, That we were enclosed by that Sea, and the Wall, as in an Isle; it seems that this was called the Sea of Scotland then, it being our March at that time. Nor are these Friths improperly called Seas, being 40 miles broad in some places. And this also agrees with our being transmarini, or on the other side of the Sea, (which are the words used in the said Statute) but not out of the Isle; and it is strange, that the Visigoths should have settled in France and Spain; the Ostrogoths in Italy, shortly after they had made their inroads; and yet we should have returned 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 settled there, left their confinement in the Irish Isle as soon as they could, to enlarge their Victories and Possessions in this larger one, which afforded greater Glory. How then can it be imagined, that they would not have settled 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: 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 entreated the Scots to stay constantly with them? for though they had been equal to their Enemies, when the Scots and they were together, yet they could not be but much more inferior 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 believed 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 mentioned, both in the Roman, English, and our Histories: for it is not to be imagined, 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 called in by the Picts, to stay as a Colony, till the Saxons had beat the Britons, who had lately called them in to their Assistance: How is it imaginable to think, that the Picts would have called them in as Auxiliaries at that time? having so lately seen, how dangerous Auxiliaries might prove, especially considering, that the Scots had been used 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 risk, but have divided with them their little Country; and yet not have employed their Assistance for the Ends for which they called them in. For the Bishop 
* Pag. 37.  tells us, that the Scots did nothing for 100 Years after they were called in.  
8. It cannot be denied, 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 entered into betwixt Charles the Great, called Charle-Maigne King of France, and Emperor of the West, and Achaius King of Scotland, called 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 
* 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 Usher, at which time the King of Scotland sent over very many famous learned Men, who founded the incomparable University of Paris. All which is clear by 
† Lib. 5. pag. 80. Aeginard. Secretary to Charlemagne, maketh an enumeration of strange Princes, who embraced 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, renowned for Learning, Clemens, joannes, Rabanus, and Alcuinus, with 4000 Men of War sent to the succour of Charlemagne. The two worthy Doctors who stayed with Charlemaign at Paris and Milan, were john surnamed Scotus, a Scottish-man, both by Nation and Surname, 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 aliegivis & in primis Scotis mandabat, quorum egregia fide virtuteque utebatur.  Paulus Aemilius in that King's Life. From which I raise two Arguments; 1. How can it be imagined, that if the Scots had not settled 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, than Emperor of all the Western World, would have entered 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 alleges? 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 entered 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 citys 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 derives from William Douglas, who was Lieutenant at that Time to Prince William, Brother to Achaius. For which Sansovin citys another, viz. Vmberto Locato, more ancient than himself. 
* Nella Cr●nica di piacenza.  And this is so far acknowledged by the French Kings, that upon it we got very great Privileges in France, and all the Heralds in Europe acknowledge, that the double Tressure, was the Badge of that Alliance.  
9 How can it be conceived, 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 presumed to have been very strong, having been so long settled in this Isle; and having possessed 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 cleared, from the received 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 were engaged very dangerous; they declared, that the Uncle should govern. Which Custom continued, till it occasioned 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 reigned, 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 mere fiction, calculated for maintaining an Antiquity, which was never controverted.  
It can as little be denied, 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 Jerome, etc. 
* Lib. 2. ad jovianum, 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 lived twelve Years before Christ, is a part of the same Tradition; and so cannot but be believed, 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 reigned in the Year 1004. The Frith of Forth is called Mare Scotiae, or the Sea of Scotland; which demonstrates, that before the Year 1000, our Country was called Scotia, or Scotland: and confirms and clears all that is said out of Beda; and as this designation of the Scotish Sea is looked upon there, as a thing very old and acknowledged; so it is continued in our Laws for many Ages, as is 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 settled before that time. For if we were a Christian Nation converted here, before that time; it follows necessarily, that we were a Nation settled here before that Time: Since a Nation is said no where to be converted, but where it is settled, 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 though Tertullian lived a little before King Donald, yet the Answer is apparent, viz. that the Nations were ordinarily converted 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 Emperors: 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 acknowledged by the learned Usher, 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 sheltered themselves here, where the Romans had no power: for though it be not proved, that the Roman Persecution reached 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 jerusalem to Britain in 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 easy to be converted themselves, and ready to have converted their former Disciples, and the People who admired 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 Celestine, as their first Bishop: And that Beda wrote of us, as the Scots, is formerly proved; and this Mission of Palladius falling in the Tract and Series of the Actions ascribed 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, 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 Ecclesiastic History more his business than my Lord St. Asaph, and was more disinterested, is therefore more to be believed 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, etc.  tells, That the Scots who had first received the Christian Faith from Pope Victor, and their first Bishop from Pope Celestine, 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 citys Prosper, as he does Tertullian, Jerome, 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 the barbarous Island Christian; and our Scotland is not an Island.  
To this it is answered, That our part of Britain was by Tacitus, and Beda, said to be reduced into an Island, by the Roman Wall from Sea to Sea: and 
* Lib. 1. c. 12. ac Tusculani, etc. 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 preferred, 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 learned, 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 gathered, the Bishop is sent: and this gloss contradicts not only common sense, but 
* Stat. 6.  Ado Viennen, and 
* Pag. 340.  Beda's own words, Ad Scotos in Christum credentes: and what is said of the 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 conformed 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, Jerome, the learned 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 Ecclesiastic Antiquaries, both Protestant and Papist, we need not condescend upon particular Authors: these being the Standards of Ecclesiastic History to the Professors of both Religions: and it is strange after all this, that a Churchman should so positively contradict, what the Antiquaries of both Churches have so positively asserted; though if there had been any thing, wherein they could have contradicted one another, they would certainly have differed.  
That Donald then was our first Christian King, in Anno 203, and Palladius our first Bishop, in Anno 431, seems most fully proved: for these being Matters of Fact, may be proved 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 confirmed by them; and these things fell out, when we had the help of Letters, and are agreeable to the sound Reason's 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.  
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 Celestine did ordain, and send Palladius, in Anno 431: That the same Pope Celestine 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 Celestine 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' 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 says, 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 lived in Britain, could not but have known his death, and had time enough to go to Rome, and be ordained Bishop for Ireland, and go to that Kingdom, and there finish their Conversion, which Palladius had only begun: and so St. Patrick was called the first Bishop. All this Hypothesis is almost impossible, though good Palladius had sooner, and deeplier despaired, 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' having died Decemb. 15. 431. And the only proofs produced 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 named; and Baleus adds, That Palladius claruit Anno virginei partus, 434; he flourished 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 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 named our first Bishop to this day: but was never named an Irish Bishop, until the Bishop of St. Asaph made him by a strange word first, in omination of success, as he says, though not he, but St. Patrick had this success. If then he died not so soon, and if the time of his death is not proved, why might he not have baptised Tarvanus? And why should our Boethius be hectored for saying, that Palladius baptised 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 settled first in Britain. I shall conclude this concerning Palladius, with the suffrage of Dr. Hammond, a learned and Episcopal English Divine, 
* 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, derived 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 retained the use of Easter, contrary to the Roman custom, which still refers to some rude conversion of theirs before Palladius; and so it is evident, that in the learned Doctor's opinion, the Scotland to which Palladius was sent, was ours; and that we were Christians before his coming, though 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 followed their fabulous jeffrey: Who finding that St. Alban had, to save his pious Guest, taken the holy Man's Habit, to the end he might be martyred for him; and as Beda expresses it, Caracalla ejus indutus; jeffrey concludes, as my Lord St. Asaph alleges, that the Vestiment was Amphibalus; and jeffrey having made the Cloak a Man, Boetius made him a Bishop of the Isle of Man: and so this Cloak was fitly ordained to be a proper Bishop for the Chapter of the Culdees: But this is ludere in sacris, and to expose Episcopacy itself upon the Stage. In answer to which, I shall only offer these few thoughts, First, What Interest had jeffrey (who was a Briton) to oblige the Scots, or the Isle of Man, in making so horrid a lie? 2. It is against sense, 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 called Caracalla, and not Amphibalus; for the Legend being written in Latin, jeffrey 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, julius, and many others suffered: And why might not Amphibalus be one of these many that suffered? And why ought Boethius to have been taxed, for mentioning Amphibalus, since this was done long before him, by a multitude of English Writers, cited by Bishop Usher, who derived 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 other Testimonies do far weigh down Bishop usher's Conjectures, that Amphibalus was not a Man, but a Vestiment, from the silence of Gildas, Beda, the Martyrologies and Breviaries of Salisbury, and jeffrey, 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 suffered 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 mentioned 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 Critics, Historians, and Antiquaries 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 named) have passionately defended our Antiquity, and not only sustained, but praised our Histories: and so the Arguments and Grounds whereupon I have proceeded, are already asserted by the best Judges, and that too after Luddus published his Objections against the same, and almost the very same Objections which are now urged, and which are treated with great contempt by 
* Pag. in Euseb.  Scaliger. Since than there is nothing now urged, that could have escaped the observation of these learned and curious Authors, who could not but have discovered, 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 though something might be pretended, if my Lord St. Asaph did in this Book, produce Manuscripts unknown to those learned Critics; yet could they have been so blind and ignorant (especially in that subtle 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 acknowledged, that ours was beyond all debate; and to this day, none controvert it, (notwithstanding of all the pains taken by Luddus, Cambden, and Usher) 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 and Nation to have been before Christ, though after the Danes. Mezeray shortly after Pharamont: 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 learned 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 show how much I trust to the strength of that Truth which I assert, I dare appeal to Selden, that Englishman, 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, 
Ind Caledonio velata Britannia monstro  
— Totam cum Scotus Jernam  
Movit & infesto spumavit remige Tethys.  As the Palms, 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 conceived, 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 Northwest; 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 possessed 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 considered 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 possessed not only in Stilicho's Time, who was Guardian to Honorius, and so lived 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 possessed them then, it cannot be said that we were only here by way of incursion, till the Year 500; or were confined to Argile, till after the Year 500, as my Lord St. Asaph contends.  
3. That we were not only possessed 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 entered 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 settled here before the Saxons, though my Lord St. Asaph makes their settlement here more ancient than ours. And in this Beda agrees with Selden, but both contradict the Bishop. And lastly, this passage clears, that the Testimonies, not only of Claudian concerning jerna, but even of Tertullian, when speaking of the Inhabitants of Britain not conquered by the Romans, and of jerom speaking of the Britannic 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 preferred 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 Gilds, who lived 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.  
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 concerned 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 settled in it, and so might have preserved the Story. Yet albeit our History were only founded on Tradition, until about 600 Years after Christ, before which the Monastery of jona or Icolm-kill was founded, that Tradition might have been sufficiently preserved, 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 preserved 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 proved, that our Historians might have been, and were sufficiently warranted in what they have said, by old Manuscripts, and Records: nor is there any thing urged in this Objection against us, but what might as unanswerably be urged against the Greek and Latin Historians. A received History cannot be overturned, from what I have formerly represented, without Arguments, which necessarily conclude that the History impugned must be false; which cannot be alleged 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 confirmed by them.  
I desire also to know, what old Manuscripts and Records Luddus, the Antiquary so far preferred 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 taxed Luddus for deriving the Britons from Brutus, since he owned a Succession of our Kings from Fergus, there being as few Documents to support the one, as the other.  
To this my Answer is, That there have been very solid grounds brought for sustaining the one, which cannot be alleged 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 killed, for which being banished from Italy, he came over to Britain: and that Britain was governed by Consuls: which should rather be laughed 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 followed Fordon, who wrote about 300 Years ago. For Fordon citys his Vouchers, many of which are extant, and those who are lost, are proved 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 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 julius Caesar, as hath been proved. All which we have collaterally supported, by a gradation of Ecclesiastic 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 informed his Son of so near a Time; nor was this worthy of a fiction. And I may modestly say of the foregoing Citations from foreign Authors, that if they be not strong enough to overturn the Bishop's Hypothesis, yet they are at least as strong as those produced by josephus in defence of the Jewish History; and yet all the learned World has acquiesced in them. 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 mentioned 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 lived: and so if this Argument proved 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 concerned to consider the Origin of the Picts as they were to consider their 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 obtained by our King Hungus, against the Saxons, by the Relics of St. Andrew the Apostle, by virtue whereof the Scots first received the Faith of Christ.  
To which it is shortly answered, 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 alleged to contradict our Histories, our Predecessors designed, 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 Balliol, interposed with design to make himself Lord Paramount of Scotland; he caused 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 conquered the first Inhabitans (for which we cite 
* Bed. Ec. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 1.  Beda) and so, though they had been Vassals, we were free; not being liable to the Conditions of the People we conquered; and as such, fought constantly against the Britons, who were forced to build Severus' Wall against us. And as to any homage made by our Kings, it was either for the Three Northern Countries of Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Northumberland, confirmed to us by the Britons, to defend them against the Saxons; and thereafter again 
* St. Asaph, p. 45.  confirmed 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 declared us free: which Bulls, Edward himself had robbed unjustly out of our Treasure, with other Records, which he could not deny: but to cajole the Pope their Judge, 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' reign obtained 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 owned the same origination there, that our Historians do to this day: and so our Ancestors differed not from our Historians, much less are they irreconcilable, as St. Asaph alleadges. 2. That the English acknowledged 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 obliged 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 considered that, as the true Conversion; or that after that time we first became subject, though not feudatary to the Pope, as these forecited words subjoined 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 reigned 800 Years after Christ: and Colman, etc. lived 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 crowned, and having defeated King Edward at Banock-burn, where he gained a most signal Victory over the English, they then being low, made application to the Pope; and he having discharged 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 fordoes 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 proved 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 confessed 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 settled here, before the Year 300 after Christ: for subtract 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 settled here before the Year 503; and denies our being Christians for many Years after the Year 300; and to improve this learned 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 forced them to renew their ancient League, and to confirm to him the former Right, his Predecessors got from them to Cumberland, and Westmoreland, for assisting them against the Picts and Saxons; which shows 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 
* 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 jeffrey of Monmoth, in many ridiculous inventions, which were purely his own; and particularly in the History of Bassianus, who being Emperor, is by him pretended to have been killed in Britain, by Fulgentius; which, though Buchannan does not exactly follow, yet he still makes Bassianus to have been a Roman Lieutenant, and to have been killed 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 jeffrey of Monmouth, can think so: for we bring not our Nation from Brutus, as he does against common sense; and though jeffrey tells a story of Bassianus the Emperor being killed in Britain, which contradicts the Roman Story; yet Fordon does expressly say 
* 〈…〉 Bassianus Caracalla, qui 〈◊〉 non pa●cis 〈◊〉 Severo 〈…〉 l. 2. c. 45.  it was not that Bassianus who was Emperor, but a Captain sent here: and so does not follow, but contradict jeffrey. And Buchannan, to show that he does not follow him (and he understood too well the Roman Story to do so) only relates that there was a Bassianus killed, which no Roman History contradicts; and which is not to be presumed Buchannan would have made, since there is nothing in it for the advantage of his Nation: and as it is probable, the Emperor would not have suffered 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●. Treble.  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, lies 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 settled, and only by way of Incursion. And in the 9th §, he asserts, That about the Year 500 they first settled 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 itself, and acknowledged by our Adversaries, that the first special Names, under which Ireland was known, were jerna among the 
* Ptolom. Geog. lib. 2. cap. 2.  Greeks, and Hibernia among the Latins: both of which are, as I said, acknowledged 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 Usher 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 Porphyry, who mentions Scoticae gentes. And though I have proved formerly all these Authors and Passages to be genuine, and applicable to us alone: yet, though they were only spurious Authors, or the conjectural Readins of new Critics, as Bishop 
* P. 725, 726, 727, 728.  Usher (whom my Lord St. Asaph follows) alleges, 
† Cap. 1. §. 4.  Porphyry 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 Porphyry, whose Book he acknowledges not to be extant, but to be only cited by jerom, who lived 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 settled under Kings in this Isle. And consequently though Archbishop Usher, and the Bishop of St. Asaph could prove, that the words Scotia, and Scoti, were not known the first 300 Years, except in Porphyry; yet that cannot prove that we were not settled 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 ofttimes design Nations by Appellatives, which they themselves invent. And it is asserted by Bp Usher, that the Scots inhabited Ireland long before the Year 300, though till then he cannot give an Author for that word. And who can deny that the Picts lived long here before Eumenius, who first mentioned them, and lived long after Porphyry who mentions the Scots? And it is very observable that to this day, neither the Irish nor we are called Scots in the true Irish Language; for they call their own Countrymen Erenach, from the word jerna, or Ibernia, and us Albanach, from Albion, and Albania: Which also clears, that we got that name long before julius Caesar's Time; since before that time, the word Albion was run into desuetude, and was succeeded to by the more known name of Britannia: And these Originations are the more confirmed, 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 called 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 preserved: And it is fully proved before that time, we were known in this 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, etc. as has formerly been fully proved. And since Hegesippus is the first Author produced by the Bp of St. Asaph, who mentions Scotia; and that it has been formerly proved, 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 called 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 proved, that the Scots came over before julius Caesar's Time; it follows from Cambden, that the name of Scotland was ascribed to us before them.  
5. Tho it be true, and acknowledged 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 derived our Colony from the Irish, that therefore We have derived the Name of Scoti from them. But on the contrary, supposing with Usher, that the Nomen Scoticum had been first given in the third Century, than the Name behoved to have been ours originally, who were more known and considered 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). 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, settled; 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 cleared 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 Usher, 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 though he calls those People, who are said to return home, Hiberni, or Irish; yet 
* Pag. 117, 118. inter Orthodoxogr.  he calls the same People who returned 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 Us in the British Territories. And Marianus (whom the Bishop likewise citys 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 settled was the West of Scotland, and therefore when they returned home, they returned not to Ireland, as the Bp of St. Asaph alleges, but to our Northwest 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 returned to Ireland, they had been Transmarine, as living in another Isle, contrary to Gildas' 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 than were; and not of any other Kingdom lying to the West thereof. And both the Picts and Scots being equally called Transmarine Nations, if the Scots went out of the Isle, it must follow that the Picts left it also, which never any was so ridiculous as to allege. By all which it clearly follows, that the words Scoti & Hiberni were, before these Times, promiscuously ascribed to us. And though Beda may speak of the Scots coming from Ireland, and settling a third Colony in Britain long before julius Caesar's time, yet that doth only prove the Antiquity of the Settlement of the People that are called 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 & Usher, for proving that Ireland was called Scotia, after the Age that Hegisippus or Ambrose lived 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 lived 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 called the Inhabitants of Ireland, Scoti, in the Year 417; Isidor by an ordinary derivation calls their Country Scotia, and is the first that Archbishop Usher, or the Bishop of Saint Asaph, does produce to prove Hibernia to be called Scotia? and is in the Year 620, and so is too late to prove their Design, since it is clearly proved 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 the very same expression, after that he has fully cleared that we were settled here long before that time: and therefore it doth necessarily 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 than lived but only the place from which We came: And such as understand the Civil Law, (the best Standard of the Latin 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: It is certain that Adamnanus is lately published 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 High, which is Ikolmkil among the Scotish West Islands: so that in dubio he is presumed 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 Irishman; but because all Authors who speak of him, call him Scotus; and to assert a Man to be an Irishman, because he is called Scots-man, is rather a Bull than a Reason. But because he is mentioned by Beda, who lived 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 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 destroyed, 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 expressed 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 expressed 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 called Scotia in Beda's Time; and so long before the Year 1000, which the Bishop denies. Nor can it be proved that the King of Northumberland went to make 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 eye 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 Hylas) 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, 
† Aidanus de insula quae vocatur Hy destinatus, quae arcem tenet monasteriorum Scotorum & Pictorum, & add jus Britanniae pertinet. l. 3. c. 3.  Aidan who was sent from the Isle which is called Hylas, which is the chief of the Scotish and Pictish Monasteries, and belongs to Britain. And thereafter he 
* Colman videns spretam suam doctrinam, sectamque 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 Hylas; 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 quoque 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 a more strict Life, had retired thither.— All whom the Scots kindly entertained, 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 lived 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 Hylas, 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 Monastic Life, it is said, they resided among the Scots and Picts, and 
† Lib. 3. cap. 3. & add jus Britanniae pertinet.  it is said before that the Island where the Monastery was, belonged to Britain.  
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 inhabit 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' being sent to them, it necessarily follows, that the rest of the Book mentioning the Scots, or that part of the Isle possessed 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 called 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 Hylas, which is Icolm-kill, as is clear by that passage, 
* Columba fundator monasterii quod in Hylas 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 Hylas, 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, 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 justus, 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, atque in hanc insulam, 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 Britoneses, 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 Apostolic Sea, according to the custom it hath observed 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 and Britons, believing that they did walk after the Custom of the Universal Church. But after we had known the Britons, we judged 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 followed Columba, differed 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 remembered, That Usher generally concludes, that where the Scots and Britons are mentioned in Conjunction, by Scots there, are to be understood the British Scots. 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 john, upon the same head: both which Marianus says, were sent to us, and not to the Irish.  Camerarius citys Georgius Newton, who about the Year 1500, being then archdeacon 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 called 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 designed Episcopus Aberdoniae in Hibernia, at the 16 of December. To which Vardaeus an Irishman in vita Rumoldi answers, That there might have been a place in Ireland called Aberdeen, because Aber is an Irish word, signifying a Marish, and there is a Town called Down in Ireland, situated near a Marish. A pretty Witticism indeed! especially as he 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, etc. pag. 380.   But to take off all Debate, Beanus is named 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 called Scotia, and Hibernia, as has been proved, 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 Hylas, (to which the former Citations chiefly relate, and which was the place of our Country, in which his History being Ecclesiastic, is chiefly concerned, 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 Hylas, ubi plurimorum caput & arcem Scoti habuere caenobiorum. Bed. l. 3. c. 21.  Ceollach, of the Nation of the Scots, leaving his Bishopric in England, returned to Hylas, 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▪ Bishopric, returned to Scotland. And the same 
* Adamnanus Presbyter & Abbess 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 Hylas is in Scotland? since Beda calls it Scotland, and says, That it belonged to Britain: and is by all Geographers named one of our Hebrides, and lies locally within our 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 signify Ireland and Irish, since the 500 Year, as before: for admitting that the Terms were anciently applicable to Ireland, and that the Scots when mentioned here, were but by Invasion from Ireland; Yet it being acknowledged, that after the Year 500 we were settled here; It follows, that when Scotia and Scoti are mentioned in relation to British affairs, and in conjunction with the Inhabitans of Britain, they must be understood of us, and our Country. 2. Beda mentioning our Country to be called Scotia, as well as Hibernia, from Columba's Time to his own, it is not only an evidence, that it was so called 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 called 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 mentioned by either of them; though Beda, upon the occasion of the Monastery of Hylas, 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 warrantable 
* Pag. 734.  Archbishop usher'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 observed 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 Archbishop Usher gives us for Dalrieda, is jocelin; 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, than it necessarily implieth, that at that Time our Country was also called Scotia Minor, there being no other place assignable. But this is contrary to Archbishop Usher, 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, than there was little or no use for it: For 
* Pag. 734.  Usher 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 imagined that Nubiensis remarked the first Periods of the change of the Name; and Geographers do describe Countries by their ordinary Names. Nor does Usher 
* Pag. 724, & 737.  produce any other Testimony, save a Letter of Dovenaldus Oneil Prince of Ulster to Pope john 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 Sigismond the Emperor, 
† Conventus Scotorum & Hibernorum de majore Scotia Monasterii jam Ratisbona.  To the Convent of the Scots and Irish of Greater Scotland of a Monastery in Ratisbone. Now Usher 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) although 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 Usher 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 settled 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 designed 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 Time, (as was formerly observed) who began to Reign in the Year 1004, That the Frith of Forth (in his Laws, in the Book of Regiam Majestatem) is called 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 called. 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 styled 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 says, 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 says, 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 
* Macbeth.  Machetad King of Scotland. All which passages agree exactly with our History, and the summary of our King's 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 
* Appen. ad l. 3.  Camerarius, and with that severity by Dempster, that his Nephew Bishop Usher (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 applies them to his own Country; yet it appears to be, rather of Design to magnify 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 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 citys, and who were immediately before him; his Book being printed at Antwerp, in the Year 1584. In his Appendix also, Commenting upon Giraldus Cambrensis (a Welshman, 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 Regibusque 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 specific 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. Jerome, who asserts that the Scots were Gens Britannica; but with great concern he vindicates us from the calumny of eating men's Flesh: and for our Antiquity he citys Beda, who says, that Sub duce Rendâ we made a third Nation in Britain. So that we see that neither the Welsh in Giraldus' time, nor the Irish in Stanihurst's time, had the Opinion of our late Settlement, and that our Country was not called Scotia for 1000 Years after Christ; which their Successors Luddus, Cambden, Usher 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 influenced by Strangers, they have suffered themselves to be imposed upon, so as to lessen our true Merit, in appropriating immediately to themselves those devout persons, who were really our Countrymen: not considering that the material unjustice was much greater than the imaginary honour: And this Plagiarism and Man-stealing became easy 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 lived 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 Usher is, in making Sedulus and Marianus Irish: since by all Writers they are both called Scots, and Balaeus an Englishman tells us, that 
† Pag. 187. Cent. 14.  Sedulius flourished under Fergus 2d. and 
* Pag. 210. Cent. 14.  Marianus under Macbeth, both our Kings; and Baronius asserts also this positively. And Sedulius having lived before St. Patrick's Time (who was the first Apostle of Ireland) and being Disciple to Hildebert an acknowledged Scot, and who lived 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.  Usher 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 mentioned and employed, 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 lived; 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 expressly distinguishes betwixt Scoti, and Hibernenses.  
But passing these, I confess it is pretty ridiculous to see a whole Book written by the abovementioned Vardaeus, and glossed by Sirin, and published at Louvain 1662., to prove that Rumoldus Archbishop of Mechlin was an Irishman: since the Arms of Scotland (which are, Or, a Lion Rampant Gules, within a doubles Tressure flowered and counterflowered with Flower de lis of the same) are placed 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 Families; And the double Tressure, though anciently born by Scotland, and which is Blazoned 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 james 1st: Whereas the whole French Histories, as well as ours; and all Foreign Historians, as well as either, the Leagues yet extant; the Privileges 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 lived 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 governed 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 together, 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 learned Bishop was forced 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 proved, 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 Settling 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 than that of the Anglo-Saxons, who settled 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 preceding Histories.  
6. He treats in ridicule jeffrey, and some other Historians of his own Country, whom he knew could not be sustained however; and this he does upon design, to show his impartiality, and that he spares not his own more than ours.  
7. For the same reason he decries 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 compliments our Nation in latter Times, to excuse the Injury he does our Kings and Antiquity.  
9 He uses the Foreign Authors that should be urged for us, to prevent our using of them as proving Arguments against him.  
10. Finding that Ireland has been called 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 denied that Fergus was our first King; all the Citations for proving this, are therefore applied to Fergus the Second, and not to Fergus the First.  
Last; Whereas Cambden and Archbishop Usher speak doubtingly of their own Arguments; the Bishop of St. Asaph fearing that his Reader could not be convinced, 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 than would know how that Scotland, which was but a small Colony, grew up to a Kingdom that deserved so well: my thoughts of this are, that, 1. The constant defence that we were obliged to make against the Romans and Britons at first, and English thereafter, Nations wise, brave, and polished, 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, raised our Wit and Courage above the pitch of a Northern and confined 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 scorned 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 returned 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 Heroic and Wife a Race of Kings, whose Blood being refined by a long Royal Descent, hath been thereby purifiyed 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 Countrymen got excellent Breeding, under so Wise and Valiant a Prince; and have ever since, by being constantly employed in the French, and other Wars, attained 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 fanned by Winds; this preserves us from the dulness and phlegm of the Northern Climates; and the want of that superfluous Plenty, and bewitching Pleasure, which softened even Hannibal when he came to Capua, preserves us against the Delicacy and Effeminateness of Southern Nations. And whereas (Heroic Virtue being still attended by Envy) some in raillery pretend, that we were unconquered, because we deserved 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 conquered 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 undervalved 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 joined with its Enemies; we were rather betrayed 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 heroic Actions.  
Having thus cleared how our Nation arrived 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 Ambrose 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, Grandchild to the foresaid Aurelius, finding himself debarred from the Succession of the British Crown, employed the Scots, who fought for him against the Britons. But the Britons having called in the Saxons, after a bloody Battle, both Parties were forced to withdraw; and the King of the Picts was induced to desist from his Pretensions at that time. But thereafter Hungus, King of the Picts, and the direct Heir of the same Mordredus, and consequently of Ambrose 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 forced to conquer the Picts, who refused 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 was Grandchild to St. Edward, who was Brother to Hardiknut, Son to Canutus.  
After this the Kingdom of England returned 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 herself: And with her came very many of the Nobility, who fled from William the Conqueror, after he conquered 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 branched out in the Houses of Lancaster and York. To the House of Lancaster, they succeed as Heirs by the marriage betwixt joan 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 reconciled; he having married Elizabeth elder 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 devolved upon the Children of Margaret the Daughter; who did bear King james the 5th, in a first Marriage with King james 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, who thereafter married Queen Mary Daughter to King james the 5th; and begot upon her King james the 6th: and thus King james the 6th was upon all sides Heir to William the Conqueror, 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 Grandchild to the King of Wales, by his Daughter, 
* Lesl. in vita Dau. 2.  who married Fleanchus Son to 
† Baker, p. 159. Edit. 1643.  Banqhuo: and Henry the 7th (to whom King james 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 acknowledge, 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 descended from King Ferquhard, Father to King Fergus the first, or from Eeric Father to King Fergus the second; or from some other Irish Kings, as Usher 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 Sovereign, King james the 7th (whom GOD Almighty long preseve) all those opposite, and different Rights, by which our Peace might have been formerly disturbed. 2. That His Majesty who now Reigns, has derived 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.  
FINIS.   

BOOKS Printed for, and Sold by RICHARD CHISWELL.  

FOLIO.  
SPeed's Maps and Geography of Great Britain and Ireland, and of Foreign Parts.  
Dr. Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers, in 2 Vol.  
Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient Time.  
Bp Wilkins real Character, or Philosophical Language.  
Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity.  
Guillim's Display of Heraldry, with large Additions.  
Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England, in 2 Vol.  
— Account of the Confessions and Prayers of the Murderers of Esquire Thynn.  
Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion.  
Herodoti Historia, Gr. Lat. cum variis Lect.  
The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuits, Seminary Priests, Recusants, the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance explained by divers Judgements and Resolutions of the judges; with other Observations thereupon. By William Cawley Esq.  
Sanford's Genealogical Hist. of the Kings of England.  
Modern Reports of select Cases, in the reign of King Charles the 2d.  
Sir Tho. Murray's Collection of the Laws of Scotland.  
Dr. Towersons Explication on the Creed, the Commandments, and Lord's Prayer, in 3 Vol.  
The History of the Island of CEYLON in the East-Indies: Illustrated with Copper Figures; and an exact Map of the Island. By Capt. Robert Knox, a Captive there near 20 Years.   

QVARTO.  
DR. Littleton's Dictionary, Latin and English.  
Bp Nicholson on the Church-Catechism.  
History of the late Wars of New-England.  
Atwell's Faithful Surveyer.  
Mr. john Cave's seven occasional Sermons.  
Dr. Crawford's Serious Expostulation with the Whigs in Scotland.  
Dr. Parker's Demonstration of the Divine Authothority of the Law of Nature, and the Christian Religion.  
Mr. Hook's new Philosophical Collections.  
Bibliotheca Norfolciana.   

OCTAVO.  
BIshop Wilkin's Natural Religion.  
— His Fifteen Sermons.  
Mr. Tanner's Primordia: Or, the Rise and Growth of the first Church of God described.  
Lord Hollis' Vindication of the Judicature of the House of Peers, in the Case of Skinner.  
— Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in case of Appeals.  
— Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in case of Impositions.  
— Letters about the Bishop's Votes in Capital Cases.  
Spaniard's Conspiracy against the State of Venice.  
Dr. Sympson's Chemical Anatomy of the Yorkshire Spaws: With a Discourse of the Original of hot Springs and other Fountains.  
Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity, in three parts.  
Ignatius Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness.  
The Trials of the Regicides, in 1660.  
Certain genuine Remains of the Lord Bacon, in Arguments Civil, Moral, Natural, etc. with a large account of all his Works. By Dr. Tho. Tennison.  
Dr. Puller of the Moderation of the Church of England.  
Sir john Mounson of Supreme Power and Common Right.  
Dr. Henry Bagshaw Discourse on select Texts.  
Mr. Seller's State of the Church in the three first Centuries.  
The Countryman's Physician.  
Dr. Burnet's Account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester.  
— Vindication of the Ordination of the Church of England.  
— History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical benefices and Church-lands.  
— Relation of the present state of the difference between the French King and the Court of Rome; to which is added, the Pope's Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy, and their Protestation, published by Dr. Burnet.  
— Abridgement of the History of the Reformation. Ogleby's Aesop's Fables paraphrased in Verse, and adorned with Sculptures and Annotations, in 2 Vol.  
Dr. Cumber's Companion to the Altar.  
Galliard's two Discourse of private Settlement at Home after Travel, and of Him who is in Public Employments.  
Markham's Perfect Horseman.  
Dr. Sherlock's Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies.  
— Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation.  
— A Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet, in answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Job about Catholic Communion.  
The History of the House of Estee, the Family of the Duchess of York, now Queen of England.  
Sir Rob. Filmer's Patriarcha, or natural Power of Kings.  
Mr. john Cave's Gospel to the Romans.  
Lawrence's Interest of Ireland, in its Trade and Wealth, stated.   

DVODECIMO.  
HOdder's Arthmetick.  
An Apology for a Treatise of Humane Reason. Written by M. Cliford Esq.  
Queen-like-Closet, both Parts.  
Bishop Wettenhalls Method and Order for Private Devotion.   

VICESSIMO QVARTO.  
VAlentine's Private Devotions.  
Crumbs of Comfort.    

Books lately printed for Ri. Chiswell.  

FOLIO.  
DR. Spencer de Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus & earum Rationibus.  
Sir james Turner's Pallas Armata, or Military Essays of the Ancient Grecian, Roman, and Modern Art of War.  
Dr. john Lightfoot's Works in English, in 2 Vol.  
Mr. Selden's janus Anglorum Englished, with Notes: To which is added his Epinomis, concerning the ancient Government and Laws of this Kingdom, never before extant. Also two other Treatises written by the same Author: One of the Original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of Testaments; the other of the Disposition or Administration of Intestates Goods; Now the first time published.   

QVARTO.  
PAtris Simonii Disquisitiones Criticae de Variis per diversa Loca & Tempora Bibliorum Editionibus. Accedunt Castigat. Opusc. Is. Vossii de Sibyllinis Oraculis.  
Dr. Falkner's two Treatises of Reproaching and Censure: with his Answer to Serjeant's Surefooting: Also several occasional Sermons.  
The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered.  
A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue.  
A Discourse of the Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome.   

OCTAVO.  
DR. William Cave's Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church by Bishops, Metropolitans and Patriarches.  
Two Letters betwixt Mr. R. Smith, and Dr. Hen. Hammond, about Christ's Descent into Hell.  
Dean Stratford's Dissuasive from Revenge.  
The Life of Bishop Bedel.  
Dr. Harris his rational Discourse of Remedies.  
Sir George Mackenzy's Just Right of Monarchy.  
Dr. Hez. Burton's first Volume of Discourses, of Purity and Charity; of Repentaace, and of seeking the Kingdom of God. Published by Dean Tillotson.  
— His second Vol. of Discourses upon divers other Practical Subjects.  
Sir Thomas More's Utopia, newly made English.  
Bishop Jewel Apology for the Church of England; with his Life. By a Person of Quality.