Apology against Edward the first of England about the Year 1300 we assert the Tradition of a wonderful Victory obtain'd by our King Hungus against the Saxons by the Relicts of St. Andrew the Apostle by virtue whereof the Scots first receiv'd the Faith of Christ. To which it is shortly answer'd that every Contradiction does not overturn the Truth of a whole History otherwise we need not be troubled to give any other answer to the Bishop's own Book nor is this pretended to be a Contradiction amongst our Historians for they all agree that King Donald was our first Christian King but in that Apology which is alledg'd to contradict our Histories our Predecessors design'd as most Pleaders do and this Eloquent Author does in his Book to gain their Point at any rate For understanding whereof it is fit to know that King Edward the first having upon the Competition betwixt Bruce and Baliol interpos'd with design to make himself Lord Paramount of Scotland he caus'd his Parliament write to the Pope to whom afterwards he wrote himself in which Letter of his it is pretended that we were Vassals to England as descended from Albanactus the second Son to Brutus 2. Because several of our Kings had become Vassals to his Predecessors in the Times of the British Saxon and Norman Kings To which we answer in our Apology That without debating whether the first Inhabitants of the Isle were descended from Albanactus or his Albanians it is asserted that we came from Spain by Ireland and conquer'd the first Inhabitans for which we cite Beda and so tho they had been Vassals we were free not being lyable to the Conditions of the People we conquer'd and as such fought constantly against the Britons who were forc'd to build Severus's Wall against us And as to any homage made by our Kings it was either for the Three Northen Countries of Cumberland Westmoreland and Northumberland confirm'd to us by the Britons to defend them against the Saxons and thereafter again confirm'd by both Saxons and Britons to assist them against the Danes Or was extorted by force from one or two young Captive Kings upon which heads the Popes had declar'd us free which Bulls Edward himself had robb'd unjustly out of our Treasure with other Records which he could not deny but to cajole the Pope their Judg they insinuate that though they were not Tributaries to his Holiness as England was yet they ought to be protected by the Pope because they had been converted by St. Andrew his Predecessors Brother-german St. Andrew having in Hungus's reign obtain'd for them a Victory over the Saxons and so became subject and subservient to the Pope in having converted the Saxons by Aidan Finan and Colman From this Matter of Fact I observe 1. That we own'd the same origination there that our Historians do to this day and so our Ancestors differ'd not from our Historians much less are they irreconcilable as St. Asaph alleadges 2. That the English acknowledg'd us to be as ancient as the Britons they and we being descended from two Brothers 3. That what we said of St. Andrew must needs be upon design to have oblidg'd the Pope meaning certainly either that we were then first effectually converted to the Church of Rome from the Oriental Observations in which we were very long very obstinate and that Rome consider'd that as the true Conversion or that after that time we first became subject tho not feudatary to the Pope as these forecited words subjoyn'd do insinuate But that our conversion from Paganism was more than 400 Years before the Saxons is positively asserted in that same Apology Nor can this have another meaning for it is undeniable that we were Christians long before the reign of Hungus who reign'd 800 Years after Christ and Colman c. liv'd long before that King Nor was Hungus our King we being only Auxiliaries to him then as King of the Picts after which Apology King Robert the 1st being crown'd and having defeated King Edward at Banock-burn where he gain'd a most signal Victory over the English they then being low made application to the Pope and he having discharg'd us by a formal Interdiction to pursue the Victory into England the Nobility to pacify that Pope and to remove the Interdiction at the desire of the King wrote Letter wherein they own the Antiquity of our Nation and Religion and Royal-Line mentioning when we came from Spain as our Historians do with whom they agree exactly Vt ex antiquorum gestis libris collegimus says the Letter which being prior to Fordon proves that all this was not Fordon's Dream and that our History is well founded on old Records prior to Fordon And lastly it appears that our Kings were not Vassals to England for their Crown but only for these Provinces as my Lord St. Asaph confesses and as I have prov'd in my Treatise of Precedency albeit our Independency was as much controverted of old as our Antiquity is now and I hope that the one will shortly appear as unjust a Pretence as the other is already confest to be From this it appears that there is rather a Harmony than real Contradiction here and that any seeming Contradiction is far less than the real ones betwixt Beda and the Bishop of St. Asaph and the following Contradictions wherein he differs from himself For clearing whereof observe That the Bishop says he questions not the truth of any thing that is said to have been within 800 nay within 1400 Years but so it is that this would bring us to be setled here before the Year 300 after Christ for substract 1400 out of 1684 which is the Year in which the Bishop prints his Book his Lordship can controvert nothing except what was done within 284 Years after Christ And yet he decryes our Historians for saying that we were settl'd here before the Year 503 and denies our being Christians for many Years after the Year 300 and to improve this learn'd Bishop's just Concession I must remark that all our Historians agree that Gregory the great King of Scotland who died Anno 892 added Northumberland to the Merse and having defeated the Britons at Lochmaben he forc'd them to renew their ancient League and to confirm to him the former Right his Predecessors got from them to Cumberland and Westmorland for assisting them against the Picts and Saxons which shews also what great things we could do not only alone without but even against the Picts All which being said by our Historians not only within the 1400 Years but the 800 are not controvertible by the Bishop's concession and therefore I understand not why he asserts that we had nothing but the Kingdom of Argyle before the beating and extirpating of the Picts who gave us their possession beyond Drumalbain Nor can I reconcile how the Bishop asserts all alongst and particularly that the Picts had nothing besouth Grahams-dyke or the
written by Ventonius yet extant which Buchannan also cites and follows Since the Writing of these Sheets I have seen a very old Manuscript brought from Icolmkill written by Carbre Lifachair who liv'd six Centuries before St. Patrick and so about our Saviours time wherein is given a full account of the Irish Kings By which I conclude that since the Irish had Manuscripts then certainly we must also be allowed to have had them having greater occasion of learning Sciences and writing Histories because of our Commerce with the Romans and polite Britans In this Book also there are many Additions by the Druids of those times from which I likewise may confirm that the Priests in our old Monasteries learn'd our Ancient History from the Druids who preceded them I have seen also an old Genealogy of the Kings of the Albanian Scots agreeing with that mentioned in our History at the Coronation of King Alexander the 2d and which has still been preserv'd as Sacred there I have also seen another old Manuscript wherein the Dalreudini Albanach are considered as setled here six Generations before Eric whom Vsher calls the Father of our Kings I find also in it that Angus Tuerteampher reign'd in Ireland five Generations before our Fergus the First and that in his time the Irish and Albanians divided and separated from one another Which agrees with our Histories which say that the Scots were in this Country long before King Fergus and his Race setled here And these our Irish Manuscripts agree in every thing with the above-cited History of Corbre ' and are in effect Additions to his Book by our old Sanachies Having thus cleared that there were sufficient Warrants upon which our Authors might have founded their Histories I shall in the next place say something of our Historians and make appear that they deserv'd the credit and applause they met with and that they founded their History on those good Warrants from which Verimund Boetius and Chambers are formerly prov'd to have drawn theirs viz. our ancient Annals and Registers Fordon was no Monk as the Bishop is pleas'd to call him and we had no such Monastery as Fordon but he was venerabilis vir dominus Iohannes Fordon Presbyter and is called a Monk by the Bishop who studies still his own conveniency to make the World believe he was inclin'd to lie as the Monks are said to have been in that Age and to shew him interested for the Independency of Monks and Culdees from Bishops This Author began at least to write before the Year 1341 for in his Book he speaks of that as a present Year This Book was so esteem'd that there were Copies of it in most of our Monasteries and one of them we have in very old but in fair Characters continued by Arelat another continued by a Reverend Man Walter Bowmaker Abbot of Icolmkill and found in the custody of one who had preserv'd several of the Manuscripts of that Monastery And both these Continuations have drawn out our Histories to the Reign of King Iames the 2d And it is not to be imagin'd that the Monasteries would have esteem'd it so much or that the Abbot of that Monastery where our chief Annals were kept would have continued it if they and he had not known it to agree with their Annals And Fordon cites frequently through his Book Chronica alia Chronica and Beda and follows him exactly he cites also Adamnanus who liv'd before the Year 700 and Turgot Archbishop of St. Andrews who lived anno 1098 and Alvared who dedicated his Book to King Malcom the 3d about the year 1057. He cites also other foreign Authors such as Sigisbert and Isidor and so has done all that the Bishop requires and all that the best Historians can do Neither does he follow Ieffrey but contradicts him even in the instance of Bassianus as shall be cleared to conviction in answering the Bishop's Objections He has in him also Baldredus or Ethelredus and the Process before the Pope containing the Copies of the authentick Letters Objections Apologies and Answers made and sign'd by Edward 1. and his Parliament and the Scotish Nobility produc'd before the Pope about the year 1300 whereof the Copies are not only extant from Fordon but the Bishop also insinuates that the Originals themselves are extant in England and certainly they were at Rome And Fordon cites many other considerable old Records He writes in a good Stile and with good Judgment and the reason why this Work was not printed was not because it deserv'd not the Press but because Boethius Buchannan and Lesly having printed their Histories in their own time and there being no printing in his it was thought we had Histories enow which also occasion'd the perishing of many of our excellent Manuscripts But why should the Bishop object to us Fordon his not being printed since he cites against us Manuscripts never cited by any and which have been left unprinted in a Country where every thing is printed and I dare say after exact perusal of the Bishops Book and of the Authors cited by him that Fordon is preferable to all those old Legends and most of those Authors which he cites against us venerable Beda only excepted who is still on our side Ioannes Major was Rector of the famous Divinity-School of Paris and was a Man of such Reputation in that University as that he is yet remembred with esteem and a Man of too innocent a life to have written a Romance for a History and he likewise relates to Beda and our Annals Of Iohn Major a full account and Elogium is given by the Learn'd Launoy Academiae Parisionsis illustrata Tom. 2. pag. 652 653. sequent One of the most accurate Writers in this Age says That the talent of writing History hath not been found on this side of the Alps in any save in Buchannan who hath written the History of Scotland better than Livius did that of Rome The Bishop of Condom also and the famous Rapin in their exact Essays concerning History have preferr'd none to him save Mariana the Jesuit whom all Men know to be far inferior but they prefer Mariana because Buchannan was a Protestant Ioseph Scaliger says of Buchannan and Us Imperii fuerat Romani Scotia limes Romani Eloquii Scotia finis erit And Mr. Dryden also my Friend whom I esteem a great Critick as well as Poet prefers Buchannan to all the Historians that ever wrote in Britain And tho I approve as little of Buchannan's Politicks as the Bishop of St. Asaph doth yet I will not be so unjust to him as he is in saying That Buchannan in the Life of Fergus the First refers to our old Annals but he cites them not for there is no such thing in the Life of that King And he was not so much a favourer of Monarchy to have allow'd it the advantage of so singular an Antiquity if he had not found the
is That no Author mentions our Country by the name of Scotia for the first 1000 years whereas most of all the former Authors both within and without the Isle prove Scotia to have been the name of our Country and the whole Tract of Beda's History proves that since the year 560 this Country was generally so called Whereas neither Gildas nor Beda who lived near that Time and wrote whole Books of us do once call it Dalrieda or Argyle and consequently as I observ'd before the Bishop of St. Asaph's whole Sect. 9. of the first Chapter wherein he asserts that about the Year 500 the Scots erected the Kingdom of Argile or Dalrieda is most unwarrantable for though Beda calls us once Dalreudini yet this is spoken of us by him in the Time of our King Reuda and so near 70 Years before the 503 after Christ. And from this also arises a clear confutation of what the Bishop of St. Asaph asserts that no Author writing within the 1000 Years and naming Scotia means Us which is so far from being so that no Author of Credit Isidore only excepted did then by Scotia mean Ireland And the best Authority that Arch-bishop Vsher gives us for Dalrieda is Iocelin which my Lord St. Asaph hath improved by a new authority out of a Manuscript of the Lord Burghlie's where the Author thinks that Dalrieda and the Kingdom of Argile are the same Authors not to be once mentioned with those whom we cite 7. The distinction of Scotia Major and Minor is lately invented for either Ireland was called Scotia Major before the Year 1000 or only since if the first then it necessarily implyeth that at that Time our Country was also call'd Scotia Minor there being no other place assignable But this is contrary to Arch-bishop Vsher and my Lord St. Asaph's Position who deny our Country was called Scotia at all for the first 1000 Years If it be asserted that this distinction was after the 1000 Years then there was little or no use for it For Vsher tells us that Nubiensis Geographus about the Year 1150 describes Ireland by the name of Hibernia and describes our Country by the name of Scotia and so it seems at that time Ireland had lost the name in our favour and it is not to be imagin'd that Nubiensis remarked the first Periods of the change of the Name and Geographers do describe Countries by their ordinary Names Nor does Vsher produce any other Testimony save a Letter of Dovenaldus Oneil Prince of Vlster to Pope Iohn 22d wherein there is this passage Beside the Kings of lesser Scotland who all came originally from our greater Scotland And a Patent of Sigismund the Emperor To the Convent of the Scots and Irish of Greater Scotland of a Monastery in Ratisbone Now Vsher acknowledgeth the eldest of these two Citations were in the 14th or 15th Century when I hope no body will assert that Ireland was called Scotia Major or that ever the Kings of England who were Lords of Ireland were ever called Lords Majoris Scotiae and it is probable they would have very much affected that Title if the Country had had that name altho they could never make themselves Masters Scotiae Minoris But it is no wonder that the Irish should be glad to tell Foreigners that they were our Chief and so their Country ought to be called Scotia Major notwithstanding that our Nation was then become great and glorious and that Vsher can find no better authority for his distinction of Scotia Major and Minor than these borrowed and magnifying Names used long after he himself acknowledgeth that Ireland had lost the name of Scotia and that We were only in possession of it 8. The mistaking of the Names of Scotia and Hibernia and of that assertion Scotia eadem Hibernia and applying these Names still to Ireland and not to our Country hath been the Ground whereupon we have been injured as to the antiquity of our Kings and Country Saints and learned Men Monasteries and greatness Abroad For admitting it to be true that we were not setled here till the Year 500 yet we have been so happy as to have such excellent Men and to have done so considerable Actions as have been sufficient to tempt our Neighbours and particularly the Irish to take great pains to have both pass for their own In order to which the Irish have lately invented the distinction of Scotia Major and Minor to the end that when any considerable Person is called a Scots-man in History they might claim him as descended from the Greater Scotland But besides that this distinction is too new to be extended to ancient Writers How can it be imagined that our Country only having passed under the Name of Scotland before the 300 and after the 1100 as has been proved Ireland should have assumed the Name of Scotland in that Interval Is it not more reasonable to think that our Country which alone was design'd by that Name before the 300 and after 1100 bore it likewise only or at least chiefly during that interval But to assert that during that space another Country had our old and present designation in a more peculiar manner than we and that in dubious Cases it must be appropriated to them is a piece of confidence which even eminent Wit and Learning cannot support And yet we find in Malcom the Second's Time as was formerly observ'd who began to Reign in the Year 1004 That the Frith of Forth in his Laws in the Book of Regiam Majestatem is call'd Mare Scotiae And it is said there that the same King did distribute omnem Terram Scotiae hominibus suis and it is not to be concluded that this was the first time that our Country was so call'd And about that time Ireland was expressed only by the name of Hibernia for King Henry the 2d of England who began to Reign in the Year 1154 is stiled Lord of Ireland And to clear further that Scotia about those times was the ordinary name for Scotland and Hebernia for Ireland I shall only add some few Passages out of Marianus Scotus who was born in the Year 1028 and died in the Year 1086 who sayes that about the Year 1016 Brianus King of Ireland was killed and a little thereafter at the Year 1034. Malcolm King of Scotland died and Duncan the Son of his Daughter succeeded him And after that he sayes at the Year 1040 Duncan King of Scotland was killed and the son of Finlay succeeded in his Kingdom whom afterward he calls Machetad King of Scotland All which passages agree exactly with our History and the summary of our Kings Lives as they are recorded in our Acts of Parliament and prove that Marianus treats of Scotland and Ireland as different Kingdoms in his Time In the last place I shall make some Remarks upon the most palpable of these Mistakes and of the chief Authors