The antiquity of the royal line of Scotland farther cleared and defended, against the exceptions lately offer'd by Dr. Stillingfleet, in his vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph by Sir George Mackenzie ...

CHAP. II. (Book 2)

That the Scots were placed here before the Year 503.

NOW without either vanity or levity, or any distracting di∣gressions, I must put the Reader in mind that in my Book I did onely * 1.1 undertake to prove against the Bishop of St. Asaph, That the Scots did set∣tle in Britain before the Year 503. And after I had prov'd this suf∣ficiently, by the clear and positive Testimonies which I adduced, and had made it appear by some of the same Testimonies, that we settled here before Iulius Caesar's time; and particularly that Reuda, one of our Kings, was expressly acknow∣ledged by Beda, one of the Au∣thours I cite; I proceeded to prove that our Historians are to be be∣lieved as to King Fergus, there be∣ing onely a hundred and thirty years betwixt these two Kings. As to which, our Historians being many,

and men of Reputation, they ought to be believed, they having narrated nothing that is improbable, and ha∣ving declared that they were suffi∣ciently warranted so to write, by the Records delivered to them by Authority out of our ancient Mo∣nasteries then extant; and that Oral Tradition, universally received of a whole Nation, is a great Fortifica∣tion of so short a step as a hundred and thirty years. And in the last part of my Book, I clear against Archbishop Usher, and the Bishop of St. Asaph, That this Countrey was called Scotland, and We Scots, be∣fore the Year 1000, a position they were driven to maintain in defence of their former Paradox.

Dr. Stillingfleet, without taking notice of these Points which I treated separately in the method now mentioned, would more cunningly than ingenuously, make his Reader believe that I have undertaken by e∣very Citation and Reason to prove the truth of all the parts of our Hi∣story from Fergus downward: and therefore when I adduce a Citation

for proving that we were settled here before the Year 503; or that this Countrey was called Scotland be∣fore the Year 1000: He asks, Where is there mention in these Citations, of Fergus? And takes no care to consider my Citations, with relation to the particular Points for which they are produced, as in my * 1.2 Ci∣tation of Scaliger, concerning the Scotobrigantes, and in my † 1.3 Citation of Claudian, &c.

To return then to my first Me∣thod, for the Readers fuller con∣viction, I must put him in mind that I did prove the first of these positions, viz. That we were set∣led in Scotland before the Year 503. (1.) By the Authority of the Bri∣tish Historians within the Isle, (2.) By the Roman Historians, who could not but know us well, because that Nation fought long with us, (3.) By Ecclesiastick Writers and Histo∣rians, who prove that the Scots were acknowledged to have been a Christian Nation here before that time, and therefore behov'd to have been setled here, (4.) I fortifie

these Citations by most clear Rea∣sons, (5.) Because the import of some of these Authorities is contro∣verted, I appeal to the best Histori∣ans and Criticks, as the most com∣petent Judges betwixt the reverend Prelate and my self; and these I hope will be found to have asserted the truth of this my Position, and the justness of my Citations.

The first Citations I used were from Gildas and Beda, the most an∣cient and esteemed of all the Eng∣lish Writers: And I did begin with Beda, because he transcribes and explains Gildas; and I shall repeat the Argument as I stated it in my first Book.

The venerable Beda, though a Saxon himself, and so an Enemy to us, having written an exact Chro∣nology according to the periods of time, does in his first chap. de priscis Incolis, tell us, that God was praised in five Languages in this Isle; that of the English, Britons, Scots, Picts and Latines; and then proceeds to tell that the Britons were the first Possessours, and possest the South

parts; After which, came the Picts to the Northern parts, and the Scots under Reuda thereafter made a third Nation in that part belonging to the Picts, getting the Western part of Scotland, North from the Picts call∣ed Dumbriton or Alcluith, and he in∣culcates their fixing here by three several, but concurring Expressions. 1. Progressi ex Hiberniâ, they left Ireland. 2. Sedes vindicârunt in Britanniâ, they setled in Britain. 3. In Britanniâ, Britonibus & Pictis gentem tertiam addiderunt; they added a third Nation to the Britons and Picts, and that this was very an∣cient, is clear; for he fixes them in Britain in that Chapter, wherein he treats de priscis Incolis: and ha∣ving thus setled the Scots and Picts, in his first Chapter with the Britons, he proceeds in the second Chapter, to setle the fourth Nation, viz, the Latines or Romans, beginning with these words: But this Britain was un∣known, and not entred upon by the Romans, till Julius Caesar's time. And having described the Wars be∣twixt these three Nations and the

Roman Emperours, in a due Grada∣tion marking every period of time, through the Reign of their consecu∣tive Emperours: and how at last the Romans had abandoned the Island, and Aetius the Roman Consul had re∣fused the Petition of the miserable Britons, so often defeated by the Scots and Picts: He in the four∣teenth Chapter relates, how the Bri∣tons upon deep Consultation brought in the Saxons, and from thence con∣tinues the Saxon History. The se∣cond Argument I brought from Be∣da, was from the 5th. cap. l. 1. Eccl. Hist. where he says, that Severus built a Wall to defend against the other unconquer'd Nations, and in the 12. cap. he tells that Britain was vexed by the Scots and Picts; two Over-Sea or Transmarine Nations: And thereafter, as if he had been a∣fraid, that this word Transmarine might have been mistaken, he adds, That they were not called Transma∣rine, because they lived and were setled out of Britain, but because they were separated from that part of Britain by the two Seas which

did almost meet. And in this he agrees exactly with Tacitus, who in the life of Agricola says, that there being a Wall built betwixt these two Seas, the Roman Enemies were closed up as in an Isle.

To these Arguments the learned * 1.4 Doctor answers first that Beda, in the beginning of his History, doth set down the five Nations that inha∣bited Britain, and so if the Scots and Picts be ancient, the Romans and Saxons must be ancient Inhabitants too in his Sense: for they are like∣wise reckoned before the War with the Romans, his business being to give an account of the present In∣habitants, and not merely of the ancient.

To which I reply, that this is a mere imposing upon the Reader: for Beda, when he names the five Nations, speaks of them in relation to the present Languages wherein God was praised within the Isle, but when he speaks of the old Inhabi∣tants, he speaks onely of the Britons, Picts and Scots; and the reason why he sets not down the particular time

wherein these fixed in the Isles, as he does when he speaks of the Ro∣mans and Saxons, is because he knew the one but the other was so anci∣ent, that the exact time of their first settlement was not known; for cer∣tainly a Chronologue would not have omitted that if he had known it. For speaking of the Romans settle∣ment, he condescends upon the par∣ticular Year: But when he speaks of the settlement of the Scots and Picts, he onely saith [Ut fertur] as they say, a word which he could not have used here, had it not been in matters of the remotest antiquity. And if so, certainly they must be much more ancient than the 503. And the inquisitive Beda was not a∣ble to reach so far back in the Year 700. wanting the helps of the old Manuscripts in our Monasteries, which onely could tell him the ex∣act time, and so he was forced to rest in the general remark of our being fixed here time out of mind even before his own age which was so near to the 503. that his own Fa∣ther might have told him precisely

when we setled, if we had not set∣led here till then.

The Doctor's second answer is, that Beda does not at all intimate that the Scots were in Britain before the Romans and Saxons. To which it is replyed, that Beda is a Chrono∣logue, and is carefull of the Notati∣on of time where he knows it: And therefore it seems still to me and has done so to such as understand well Chronology, as sure a demon∣stration as that Science can allow, that the Scots being named as one of the three ancient Nations inha∣biting this Isle, and their actions a∣gainst the Britons and Romans, be∣ing narrated before the Saxons are said to have entred, that there∣fore their settlement must be the elder, though it be not said in ex∣press terms, and if any account of Kings, or memorable actions, were set down by a Chronologue, without adding the years, these things be∣hov'd to be considered ancient, ac∣cording to the order wherein they are exprest; especially in this case, since the * 1.5 defeat of the Britons by

the Scots and Picts is made the cause of bringing in the Saxons; and the cause must necessarily precede the effect. In fortification of all which, we must mind, that this will agree better with the following Citations, which clear, that the Scots settled here before the year 404; at which time the Saxons entred, and that they were here before the Romans, is likewise clear: for after they are marked to be setled in this Isle, * 1.6 Britain is said to be unknown to the Romans. And as the Romans are acknowledg∣ed to have been here before the Sax∣ons, and so to be set down by Beda before them; Why should not the Scots be likewise acknowledged to have been setled here before the Ro∣mans, since their settlement is first mentioned?

The Doctor's third Answer is, * 1.7 That though Severus's Wall was acknowledged to be built against the unconquer'd Nations beyond it; yet it is not said, that the Scots and Picts were these unconquer'd Nati∣ons, else the controversie had been ended: But on the contrary, Dion,

by whom we may understand Beda's meaning, tells us, that these Nations were the Maeatae and Caledonii: To which it is reply'd, that Beda, in his first Chapter, mentions onely the Scots and Picts, as setled here with the Britons: in the second he brings in the Romans, and gives an account of their progress under Iulius Cae∣sar: in the third under Claudius: in the fourth under Marcus Antoninus: in the fifth, under Severus, he men∣tions the building of the Wall to se∣cure the Roman Conquest against the unconquer'd Nations. After which, in the 12th, he recapitulates the War betwixt the Britons and Ro∣mans, against these unconquer'd Na∣tions, whom afterwards he still calls Scots and Picts. And again, he men∣tions the Scots and Picts, as the one∣ly invaders of this Wall, built against those Nations whom he called un∣conquer'd, without speaking of the Maeatae or Caledonii: So that from Beda it is clear, that these uncon∣quer'd Nations were the Scots and Picts; and therefore, by Dr. Stillingfleet's own confession, the

controversie is at an end. And these Moeatoe and Caledonii were in effect the Scots and Picts, considered as Highlanders and Lowlanders: for Bochart Canaan, l. 1. 42. tells us, that Camdenus rectè deducit Galedo∣nios à Britannico Caled, quod durum sonat; duri enim & asperi erant in∣colae, & terra etiam tota horridis & confragosis montibus attollitur. Cale∣doniis opponuntur Moeatoe, Camd. de Britannia Septentrionali, p. 3. Inco∣loe ol••m in Myatas & Caledonios di∣stincti erant, id est, in campestres & montanos. Idem, p. 501. Decheumeath, i. e. planities ad austrum. And he derives Caled and Meath, from He∣brew and Arabick of the same signi∣fication. And this farther appears by comparing Dion Cassius cited by the Doctor, with Claudian; for Dion onely says, Britannorum duo sunt proesertim genera, Caledonii & Maeatoe: nam coeterorum nomina ad hos ferè referuntur. Incolunt Moea∣tae juxta eum murum, qui Insulam in duas partes dividit; Caledonii post illos sunt. And Claudian tells us who were these against whom the Wall was built.

Venit & extremis legio proetenta Britannis, Quae Scoto dat fraena truci, ferró{que} notatas. Perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras.

From which I observe, that the Moeatoe were in effect the Picts, who dwelt in the Low Countrey nearest the Wall, and that the Caledonii were the Scots who then lived in the Hills. So that Dion is so far from proving that the Wall was not built against the Scots and Picts, that he agreeth with the other Authours cited here and elsewhere, who all concur to prove, that the Wall was built against the Scots and Picts. And the Doc∣tor might as well conclude, that our actions done here this day, are not done by the Scots, because our Hi∣stories speak oft-times of the High∣landers and Lowlanders, which are the Maeatoe and Caledonii. And I do conclude, that either the Doc∣tor is not a man to parallel Au∣thours with Authours, or else he

is not of that candour I did former∣ly take Dr. Stilling fleet to be.

The Doctor's Fourth Answer is, That when Beda makes the Scots a transmarine Nation, as dwelling be∣yond the Friths, and not out of Bri∣tain; this is onely said in his own defence; because in his first Chapter he had setled them in Britain: and no more respect should be had to this, than if a Scotish Writer in Be∣da's time had spoken of the Trans∣marine Saxons, using the words of an Authour who lived before their coming into Britain, and then should explain himself that he does not mean the German Saxons, but these who lived in Britain beyond the two Friths: Would this prove that the Saxons lived here before Iulius Coesar's time? all this I confess is a piece of odd reasoning: for certainly we must either deny all Authority and reason, or confess that Beda, who was so ancient an Authour, and liv'd so near to Gildas's time, and to our Countrey, behoved to know whe∣ther the Scots liv'd in Ireland or not: And it is not to be thought, that Be∣da

would have written so distinctly and positively such a great and pal∣pable Lye, merely to maintain his own Assertion: and therefore his acknowledgment, that we were set∣led here beyond the Friths, and not in Ireland, proves sufficiently quod erat probandum; and it seems to me a descension below the gravi∣ty of so great a Doctor, to sport himself over and over upon the em∣pty criticism of my calling this a demonstration; neither is it any wonder, that the Doctor is angry at me when I cite Beda: for both the Bishop of * 1.8 St. Asaph and † 1.9 he, treat Beda so, because what he writes makes for us.

To Gildas's Authority it is an∣swered by the ‖ 1.10 Doctor, that by these Seas must not be understood the Friths of Forth and Clyde, but the Sea betwixt Ireland and Scotland; because that Gildas speaks still of them as carrying away their prey beyond Seas; and the passage over the Frith behoved to be as large as that over the Seas, being 40 miles in some places; whereas the passage

betwixt Scotland and Ireland, is, in some places, but 13 miles. To this it is Reply'd, that the Friths are cal∣led Mare Scoticum, both by our Laws and the English Writers: And to these I now add their own * 1.11 Lud∣dus. His words are, Bernicia verò à Tissa ad mare Scoticum, quod nunc Frith vocant. To which the Doc∣tor neither has, nor can make any answer. And so the word Trans Ma∣re is not impropriated when it is applyed to our mare Scoticum: and though in some places the Frith of Clyde be so broad at the very entry to the Ocean, where it is rather Sea than River, yet many parts betwixt Scotland and Ireland are much broa∣der than the broadest part of the Friths. And the Scots in their Cor∣roughs did not pass at the broadest part, but near the Wall at Dunbrit∣ton, where they were nearest the Picts, and it is not a Mile broad there, and is little broader for a long tract of the River under it; and the broadest part of it is exceedingly more calm and passable than the I∣rish Sea; the one being but a River

and within Land, and the other be∣ing a strait of the wide and open Northern Ocean, where the Sea, by how much it is straitned, becomes the more turbulent. And therefore when Claudian expresses our Invasi∣ons and Flights, he does it by Oars.

Fregit Hyperboreas remis audaci∣bus undas.

But that of the Saxons by Sails.

—Venturum Saxona Ventis.

Which presupposes Sails. Nor were the Corroughs mention'd by Coesar (l. 1. de bello Civili) cited by the Doctor, made for Seas, but Rivers, as is clear by the words, Nec pontes perfici possent; and these Militésque his navibus flumen transportat. Edit. Variorum 1670. & 492. It does not therefore appear probable, or reasonable, that a whole Fleet should be made by poor Pilferers of such stuff fit to carry an Army, with its prey, over so turbulent a Sea, and in the Winter time, they having fought

and pillaged all the Summer, and the prey being then ordinarily either Cows or Horses, there being little else to be plundered; and if they had passed at Cantyre, which is that narrow place, they behov'd to have travell'd likewise over a whole tract of ground, and two other Seas, be∣fore they had come to the Frith of Clyde, and the Britons Countrey. And Beda explaining Gildas's own words, tells us, that they ceas'd not to drive preys from the Britons; And agere praedam, to drive a prey, is what can onely be done by Land, and so could not have been done in Corroughs. Nor is that driving by Corroughs ever called a Piracy, as it would have, if it had been from one Island to another. But the carrying of Beasts over a River is consistent enough with the driving a prey, though that this, in the Doctor's sense, infers an impropriety in the words, as well as a contradiction to common sense.

Whereas it is in the last place, urg'd, that a Wall against the Scots

and Picts had been ridiculous, if the Scots could have come against the Britons by Sea. It is replyed, that the Doctor (not knowing the Geography of the place so well as we, who have seen it) does not con∣sider that this Argument proves ra∣ther against himself; for if the Scots had dwelt in Ireland, which is al∣most to the South from Dunbritton, It had been ridiculous to have built a Wall against them from East to West: for against these incursions from Ireland by Sea in Corroughs, it should have been built along the mouth and coast of Clyde, from South to North, and the Doctor will allow me at least to call this a De∣monstration; it being a thing that may be seen. But the true reason why the Wall was built, is very ob∣vious, viz. because the incursions were made by the Scots and Picts, who were not formidable except when u∣nited, and they had no passage for an Army when united, but over the Wall: whereas any injury they could doe in their Corroughs over the Frith was very inconsiderable, and

could have been easily stopt; and so the Wall was still usefull against Conquest, thoughnot against Piracy. And to conclude; all this is most consistent with Beda's Sense of Transmarine, but not with the Doc∣tor's: And therefore we should ra∣ther believe the venerable Beda speaking of things very near his own time, when they are very probable, than a Paradox, broacht lately, far distant from these times, and defend∣ed now by our too partial Adversa∣ries: especially since Beda shall be prov'd to agree thus, not onely bet∣ter with common Sense, but with all the Authorities of the Roman Authours and Criticks. And I must still mind my Readers, that received Histories are not to be overturned without infallible Proofs brought a∣gainst them. But who can be a more favourable Judge for the Doc∣tor, than the Saxon and so his own Countrey-man, Albertus Crantzius? Or who can better understand the Time of the Saxons descent, and the History of Beda, than he who is himself the famous Saxon Historian?

He * 1.12 then tells us, that in the Year 449 the Saxons were first invited here, but he says, Let us write from a higher Rise. And so he proceeds to tell how the Picts setled here, and he adds, that within a very little after them, the Scots, resolving not to stay in Ireland, sailed sometime into Scotland; and being for a little time resisted by the Picts, * 1.13 both Na∣tions setled in that part, which is of very old called Scotland. After which, he proceeds to † 1.14 settle the Romans, and to relate our Wars with them, and he gives an account that the Wall built by Severus, was a∣gainst the Scots and Picts, without mentioning, either the Maeatae or the Caledonii. From which it is clear, that Crantzius not onely makes our settlement much elder, than that of the Saxons, and that we were here before them by way of settlement; and not by way of Incursion; but also expressly acknowledges, that our settlement was very near as old as the Picts, who are beyond all dispute own'd to have been here long before Iulius Caesar's time. And

(which is very remarkable) he cites none of our Historians for con∣firming his opinion, and cites onely Beda, whom he interprets, and un∣derstands as we do, and as indeed all th World does, except our pre∣judiced Adversaries.

It is also objected by the Doctor, that Gildas * 1.15 tells us, that the Scots and Picts two Transmarine Nations, did first invade the Britons, under Maximus, which was long after Cae∣sar's time. To which it is answered, that Gildas there designs not to speak of the first Invasion of the Scots and Picts, upon the Britons, but onely of the first of the three Vastations made by them: for the Scots and Picts did often invade the Britons formerly, as is clear by Eumenius and others, yet they were never able to waste their Lands, untill that Maximus disarm'd the Britons alto∣gether, as Gildas relates. And after this, Gildas sets down the other two Vastations, and names them all, un∣der the express numbers of First, Se∣cond and Third Vastations. (1.) It is most clear by this passage, that

the Scots who made this Vastation, liv'd not in Ireland but in Scotland, beyond the Wall and Friths; for Gildas calls both the Scots and Picts, Transmarine, without distinction. And certainly the Picts lived not in Ireland at that time, and therefore neither did the Scots: And conse∣quently, Beda did most justly in∣terpret the word Transmarine to be; not because they liv'd without Bri∣tain, but beyond the Friths, and Beda intimates that that was the common acceptation of the Word Transmarine, which is imported in the Phrase, Transmarinas autem non dicimus, &c.

Because it's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Bishop and the Doctor, that Gildas can one∣ly mean in all these passages, the Irish residing in Ireland; since he says * 1.16 the Irish returned Home; and where could the Home of the Irish be, but in Ireland? I think fit to re∣fer the Reader to the Seventh Section of my former Book; where I have fully prov'd, that by the Irish, in these Citations, is meant the Irish in∣habiting Scotland, and which I shall

again more fully vindicate in the fourth Chapter of this Book, from the objections urged in this New An∣swer. I urged also in my Book, ma∣ny Authorities to prove, that it was the general opinion, even of the Eng∣lish Historians, that we were setled here, even before Iulius Caesar's time, to which the Doctor re∣turns no Answer. And this having proved my position by Authorities within the Isle, I'll now pass to the foreign Authours.

Against the Citation urged from Eumenius in his Panegyrick to Con∣stantius, the Doctor does very little else but repeat what the Bishop had said, and I had 〈…〉〈…〉ly refuted; and seeing he can make none but such in∣considerable additions, I wonder to find that Argument renewed, unless the Doctor thinks that his Authority is greater than the Bishop of St. A∣saph's, for I have already observed, that the Comparison is strong e∣nough in Buchanan's Sense, which is all that is requisite. And I wonder to hear him say, that it was not a greater advantage, and more for

Constantius's honour, that he did beat the Britons after they had been long trained up to fight, even by the Romans, than when they were altogether rude, and had never seen any enemies but Picts and Irish in Iulius Caesar's time: For as common reason teacheth us, that they could not but considerably improve, in near four hundred years time of fre∣quent Wars; So the Bishop of St. Asaph tells us, * 1.17 that, to the end they might more easily resist the Scots and Picts, the Romans taught them the Art of War, and furnisht them with Arms; which is suffici∣ent to sustain the strength of the Oratour's comparison, when he as∣serts, that Constantius's Victory over the Britons was greater than that of Caesar's: And albeit the next Para∣graph mentioneth other advantages, yet it does not follow, that these ad∣vantages were not very considerable, and these advantages are no part of the former Comparison, but make a new Paragraph, and are a new heightning of Constantius's Victory, from other grounds, (2.) I could

never see how it could be truly said by the Oratour, that the Britons were used to fight against the Irish and Picts, if by the Irish be not meant there, the Scots: for as I have prov'd that we were called Irish in those Ages, so I desire to know where the Britons were used to fight against any Other Irish save those, who inhabited Britain? Nor do the Irish pretend that ever there were any Wars between the Britons and them, save onely in Egbert's time, which was many years after Caesar; and even this is but a Conjecture of a late Authour, Usher and Flahartie do adduce no more ancient Au∣thour for it. And so that cannot verifie the Oratour's saying, that they were accustomed to fight a∣gainst the Irish in Caesar's time. It is also very considerable, that the Picts here are joyned, as used to fight joyntly against the Britons, for it can never be instanced that the Picts joyned with any against the Britons, save with us. And it is in∣deed incredible, that the Scots should be accustomed to fight from Caesar's

time to Constantius's, and to the Year 503, (which must at least include about six hundred years, allowing onely one hundred years to verifie that word) and yet never settle where they fought, venturing their lives for the defence of other Mens Lands for a prey, which could be of very little use to be plundered in those days, there being little to be taken save Cattel, which could have been hardly transported in Cor∣roughs over such boisterous Seas, (3.) The Doctor tells us, that Bri∣tannicum, and not Britannum is the Adjective, or at least that this Au∣thour useth onely Britannicum for the Adjective; and so soli Britanni were not good Grammar, if con∣structed in the Genitive. But to this I reply, that the Doctor adverts not that I have prov'd by Citations, which he Answers not, that Britan∣num is an Adjective and so soli Bri∣tanni, good Grammar in the Geni∣tive, and there is nothing more or∣dinary for Oratours than to vary their Phrase, using sometime one way of expressing, and sometime

another, variety in such Cases giving both delight and Ornament: Nor can I see why, if this had been ill Grammar, Cambden would not have carped at it, as he did not; or how Scaliger would not have taken no∣tice of it, he having decided for us, after Buchanan had put this Con∣struction on this expression: for though Scaliger doth not expressly take notice of the Construction, yet after he had fully considered the de∣bate betwixt Buchanan and Luddus (wherein this was one chief Argu∣ment) he decides for Buchanan, which upon the matter is a clear approbati∣on of Buchanan's Construction. This is all I contended for, by citing Scaliger; onely the Citation of him on Tibul∣lus is wrong printed, for that of his on Eusebius. And that this is a clear Consequence drawn from Scaliger in his Notes on Eusebius, is un∣deniable. And if so, then certainly the opinion of Scaliger and Bucha∣nan, with Cambden's acquiescence, is much to be preferred to our preju∣diced Enemies, whose Learning does not lye so much that way. The

Argument from the pointing addu∣ced by the Doctor, in Puteanus's Edition of Eumenius is not onely contrary to that of Stephanus and Plantin, which I have cited; but even from that way of pointing, there is no advantage to the Doctor. For to sustain the words soli Britanni to be Nominative, there should have been a Comma after soli Britanni: For as they now run, Et soli Bri∣tanni Pictis modo, & Hibernis assue∣ta hostibus, they cannot be Construc∣ted otherwise than thus, Natio rudis & assueta hostibus, Pictis & Hiber∣nis, soli Britanni: And if soli Bri∣tanni likewise had been Nominative, the Oratour to make good Gram∣mar, should rather have said Natio rudis, & soli Britanni assueti, (and not assueta) Pictis & Hibernis. But abstracting from both the pointing and the Grammar, it is undeniable from this place, that this ancient Roman Oratour did in the days of Constantius before the Year 503. consider our Colony as accustomed to fight against the Britons, and as a distinct people joyned in this War

with the Picts, which cannot be ap∣plyed to any other Nation but to us. And therefore Cambden and Usher, more reasonably fly to another sub∣terfuge, viz. that Eumenius spoke ac∣cording to the conception of that Age, wherein he lived; and it is undeniable, that that Age considered onely us, and the Picts, as fighting against the Britons, and as two Na∣tions fixt here. But this Answer is also very ridiculous; for if our Anti∣quity had not been very considerable in Eumenius's days, the Oratour would not have exposed himself so far, as to found the Comparison upon a palpable lye, where he might have been traced; and so I confess if such kind of Answers as these be allowed, no Nation can prove its Antiquity. But agreeably to all these objections, this Citation proves at least, that the * 1.18 Bishop of St. Asaph's position, that the Scots were not at all in Britain, nei∣ther by Incursion, nor by any other way, till the Year 300. is incon∣sistent with this Roman Authour, as well as our Story, and the general belief of Rome at that time.

The next Authour whom I did cite, was Latinus Pacatius, who, in his Panegyrick to Theodosius upon his Victory in Britain, complements him for having reduc'd the Scots to their own Marishes; which shews, that the Scots had their own Ma∣rishes in Britain before the year 503. To which the Doctor answer∣eth nothing. And from the same Authours calling (in another place) the same Marishes, the Marishes of the Caledonians, I infer, that these Marishes were in Britain, and not in Ireland; and that the Scots were called Caledonians. And thereafter I adduce Valerius Flaccus and Mar∣tial, to prove our Antiquity. To all which, the Doctor answers no∣thing, but that the Caledonians were Britons, without answering my ci∣tations, which I have adduc'd to prove this. And as to the Criticks whom I cite for us, * 1.19 he says very wisely and profoundly, that we are not to follow Modern Writers in their Improprieties. This Answer, so injurious to all the learned world, he also returns to my proving from

Lipsius, Bergier and others, that Galgacus was a Scot. And when from Tacitus himself I prove, that he must necessarily have been a Scot, for the Irish Kings never came to fight in Britain. He could not be a Briton, because he was speaking to those who had never been under the Roman slavery. And Tacitus tells that he was a King of a Nation un∣known, and but newly discovered, whereas the Romans formerly knew the Britons. Neither was he ever pretended to be a Pict, nor is he in the Genealogy of their Kings. To all this the Doctor answers nothing.

All then that is answer'd to my testimony from Tacitus, is, That those who fought under Galgacus, were Britons, and not Scots, as ap∣pears by Galgacus's Speech to them, wherein he says, that they are the noblest of the Britons, and fight to recover the Liberty of the Britons: And if Tacitus had known that they came out of Ireland, he had told it; nor could that Irish King who was with Agricola, have omitted to in∣form him of this. To which I Re∣ply;

That Agricola wrote not this relation himself, but it is written by Tacitus, who had it from Agricola, and so cannot be exact, being but the relation of a relation; and pro∣bably Agricola knew more of it from that Irish King. But there is enough in Tacitus to prove, that we were setled in Britain at that time, and were of Spanish extraction from Ireland, which was all that Irish King could inform. For it is clear, (1.) That those who fought under Galgacus were Caledonians, and past not under the general name of Bri∣tons; for Galgacus exhorts them, to shew by their valour, * 1.20 what brave Men Caledonia had separated from the rest; and though they were Bri∣tons, yet that proves not that they were not Caledonian Britons, (2.) Gal∣gacus tells, that they were yet † 1.21 un∣conquer'd and untoucht, which is not applicable to the old Britons, for they were conquer'd before that time; but is so far peculiar to the Picts and us, that we are still called Indomitae gentes. (3.) Tacitus de∣scribes two different People in Bri∣tain,

one big and white, which shew∣ed them of a German extraction; a∣nother black in hair and face, said to be of a Spanish extraction. And can any thing agree better with our Histories, and the description of the Picts, who are said to have come from Germany, and of us who are said to be a Colony of Spaniards, that rest∣ed for some time in Ireland? And Tacitus's saying, that it could hardly be known then, whether these Na∣tions were * 1.22 Originally Britons, or Strangers, shews, that we were there very anciently; which is also clear'd by Beda, and confirms what he and Eumenius say. And immediately after Tacitus, we are known under the names of Scots and Picts; and the ablest Criticks, who have com∣pared Histories, call Galgacus expres∣ly, King of the Scots; whose Inter∣pretation, because that is their trade, and they are disinterested, must be prefer'd to the Doctor's; and I add now to Lipsius, Bergier and others, whom the Doctor acknowledges to prove that Galgacus was a Scot, Keppingius, who, though he doubts

of some of our Antiquities, places amongst these things, which are * 1.23 certain, that in Agricola's time, Gal∣gacus, King of Scotland, fought brave∣ly to retain his Liberty: and Farna∣bius, a learned and judicious English Critick, in his Commentary upon Martial, lib. Spectaculorum, Epigram. 7. l. 3. who on these words,

Nuda Caledonio sic pectora praebu∣it urso.

Saith, The Ursus Caledonius is è Scotia. And on these words, lib. 10. Epigram. 44.

Quinte Caledonios Ovidi visure Britannos.

He interpreteth Caledonios Bri∣tannos to be Scotos, conform to his exposition of the foresaid words. [Nuda Caledonio, &c.] Schreveli∣us also, in his Edition of Martial, cum not is variorum, is altogether of Farnaby's mind, and useth his very words in his Commentary upon the two fore-cited places. I will finish

this period with Gretius, who, speak∣ing of our Barclay, calls him Gente Caledonius, &c. And with Scaliger the Father, who, in his Exercitati∣ons against Cardan, declares the Ur∣si Caledonii to be Ursi Scotici: Which Authours, and many others, have prevail'd with Church-hill, in his Di∣vi Britannici, to differ from our Doctor, in confessing that the Ca∣ledonii were the Scots.

By the same Magisterialness, with which he contemn'd Lipsius, and the other Criticks, in the former ci∣tation, he does also condemn the au∣thority of Scaliger, and Salmasius, in my urging the Citations of Scoto∣brigantes, in Seneca, and of the Sco∣ticae primae, in Spartian. But howe∣ver I must beg leave, notwithstand∣ing this, to consider, those two anci∣ent Authours, Seneca and Spartian, to be sufficient proofs of our Anti∣quity, till the Doctor's friends can prove to me that he is a greater Cri∣tick, and as impartial in this case as Scaliger and Salmasius are. But how∣ever, the Doctor answers not the reasons I adduced, for proving these

their Criticisms to be most just: and these are abstract from all authority, and I recommend the reading of them to any impartial Judge.

Claudian may be justly called by us, the Scotish Poet, as Beda is the Scotish Antiquary: for Claudian's whole Poem is, in effect, a conti∣nued confirmation of our History. For he having written a Panegyrick to Honorius, and in it magnifying Theodosius his Grandfather, he de∣scribes all along his fighting with the Scots, which Sigonius calculates to be in the year 367. as Isackson on this year observes. And I refer my Reader to my former Book, as to these passages cited by me, none of which passages can be applied to the Scots in Ireland, with whom Theodosius never fought, but onely to the Scots in Britain, with whom it is certain he did fight, many Mo∣numents whereof are extant in that part of our Countrey called Ierna. But the Doctor says, though this were granted, yet it would fall much short of Alexander, or Iulius Caesar's time: And what then? for

I never intended that this should prove either, but onely that we were elder than the 503. But (says he) there appears no Demonstration. More wonderfull still! for I called it no Demonstration, though I think it weighs as much as any thing in the Doctor's Book. And I take no∣tice onely of this Raillery, and So∣phistical way of answering, to detect the two great Engines which the Reverend Doctor useth all along in his Book.

That which he answers here spe∣ciously is, that by Ierna, is meant Ireland by the Poet, and does he not mention the Scots moving all Ierne?

—Totam cum Scotus Iernen Movit, & infesto spumavit remige Tethys.

And is it not Poetical (says the Doctor) to say he mov'd all a little part of Scotland?

To which my Replies are, that first Scotland was called Ireland in these days, as I have prov'd in the se∣venth Section of my former Book,

and shall prove more fully in the fourth Chapter of this. Onely at present I shall add, the * 1.24 English Po∣lychronicon, which expresly tells us so, Prior to Fordon.

(2.) Did Theodosius conquer Ire∣land, or persue them over to Ireland? and does any Authour call Ireland, [glacialis Ierne?] So then when a name is proper to two places, which of the two is meant, should be de∣termined by the action which is said to be done in the place. And how agrees this with Beda's telling, that we were setled here long before that time, and were not Transma∣rine? Or with Latinus Pacatius, who says, that Claudius, before that time, triumph'd over Britain, and reduc'd the Scots ad suas paludes? And where have the Irish any Mo∣numents and Histories of these Vic∣tories, as we have?

(3.) Does not Iuvenal expresly make us, Iuverna, which is the same thing with Ierna?

—Arma quidem ultra Littora Juvernae promovimus.

Which cannot be applied to Ireland, because the Romans never went thi∣ther, much less went they beyond it; and the adding

—Et modo captas Orcadas, & minimâ contentos nocte Britannos.

does not all agree with Ireland: for it is neither joyn'd to, nor is it near the Orcades, nor has it so short nights as we have. But

(4.) The name of Ierna was not confin'd to the little Conntrey of Stratherne, but was extended to all the Northern Highlands, as far as In∣nerness, and so the Raillery of [mo∣ving all a certain little part] is insi∣pid: nor is there any thing more or∣dinary than to give the denominati∣on of a part of a Countrey to the whole; and thus, when it is said, the King beat the Hollanders; By this, is meant, the whole Nether∣lands, though Holland be onely a part: and this figure is so frequent in all the Latin Poets, that it were a mark of ones ignorance either to de∣ny

it, or insist on it. Thus Petro∣nius Arbiter expresses the defeat gi∣ven by Caesar to Aphranius in Spain, per funer a gentis Iberae, though Ibe∣ria be but a little part of Spain, so called from the River Iberus, be∣cause the Battel was fought there; which holds in every circumstance with our case, wherein the Poet de∣scribes the trouble of all Scotland, by Ierna, because the Battel was fought there, though Ierna be onely a part of Scotland, called from a River of that name. And all Scotland, by the same Poet, and to this day, is called Caledonia, though Caledonia be but a small part of it about Dun∣keld. And though I should grant that by Ierne here was meant Ire∣land, yet that cannot make against our being setled here before that time; For it is very reasonable to think, that the Irish, hearing that the Romans had penetrated so far in∣to Scotland, as to have defeated so many of these as came originally from Ireland, they would have sent over men to assist us; especially knowing that it might be their lot,

next: even as if the French should beat and ruine the Scots now setled in Ireland, our whole Countrey would certainly be in a commotion, and we would send over men to their assistence, as we did in the late Wars. I confirm'd this citation of Claudian, by that of Sidonius Apollinaris, which is likewise an original proof of our Antiquity. To which the Doctor answers, that Sidonius distinguishes the Caledonian Britons from the Scots and Picts; This is, indeed, just such another, as if, because I call my self, in Latin, Scoto-Britannus, I should distinguish my self from the Scots and Britons. But I would fain know who were these Caledo∣nian Britons, who were different both from the Scots and Picts; for after he has named the Caledonian Britons, in general, he specifies af∣terwards both the Sc ts and Picts. There is no answer made to the te∣stimonies from Hegesippus, Ammia∣nus Marcellinus, nor Orosius: and therefore I now proceed to the Ec∣clesiastick Writers cited.

After I had made it very proba∣ble that this Nation received, very early, the Christian Faith, because the Christians, who were persecuted by the Romans, would fly hither to us who had never submitted to the Ro∣man Tyranny: I cited, in general, for our Nations being converted under the Reign of King Donald, Baronius, as the standard of Ecclesiastick Hi∣story amongst the Papists, and the Magdeburgick Centuries among the Protestants. And it is strange, if they, being disinterested, and having the help of their respective parties, should fail in so remarkable a mat∣ter as that of the conversion of a whole Nation. Nor can Baronius be thought interested, because he would design to make our first Mission flow from Pope Victor, and our first Bi∣shop to be sent from Pope Celestine: for it was all one to Baronius, as making as much for the Court of Rome, that our first Bishop came from any Posteriour Pope. And if our single and interested ad∣versaries (though so mightily ex∣tolled by one another,) should

be preferred to these Authours, and as infallible as they would fain be thought, there is indeed an end of all Controversie. But I am sure the rejecting of all Authori∣ties, I have cited, and which are not so much as controverted, will not take with the indifferent World, and that satisfies me. But however, be∣side the Authorities of these great Men, let us consider the Grounds upon which they are founded, and which I have considered as well in all the Editions of Baronius I could find, as the Doctor could have done, though the Doctor in his wonted way Magisterially says, that it seems I never looked into him. I am used in my Employment to be contra∣dicted, which makes me look ex∣actly to my Citations. And where∣as the Doctor tells, that what Ba∣ronius says, relates to the Conver∣sion of the Scots, and not to their Antiquity, This is very ill reasoned: for it Baronius concludes, that we were a distinct Christian Nation from the Irish; and had a Church distinct from theirs long before the

Year 503. it must necessarily fol∣low, that in Baronius sense, we were a Nation settled here long before the Year 503.

Prosper does expresly say, that Palladius was sent to the Scots be∣lieving in Christ, to be their First Bishop, ordain'd by Pope Celestine. This Mission is acknowledged to be in the Year 431. and consequently there were Scots before that time, believing in Christ, so nationally, as to need a Bishop. The Contro∣versie then is, whether these Scots, to whom Palladius was sent, were the Scots in Ireland, or the Scots in Bri∣tain for these Reasons. (1.) Be∣cause Beda says so in those Chapters, wherein he speaks onely of us, and not of the Irish, and Dr. Stillingfleet onely repeats here what I have formerly refuted. And Beda could not but understand best of any man the Conversion of a Nation, to which he was so near a Neighbour, to a Church, in which he is accoun∣ted so eminent an Historian and Tea∣cher. (2.) The universal Tradition of the Christian Church, and of ours

in particular, makes Palladius our First Bishop, and our Monasteries and Church-men could not but carefully transmit such a point as that to us; especially in an age wherein Lear∣ning and Letters were freqeent e∣nough to be usefull, in remembring so extraordinary a point. And St. Patrick is acknowledged by the I∣rish themselves, to be their First Bi∣shop, which could not be if Palladius had been before him so that the Doctor here is forced to ove〈…〉〈…〉 all History and Tradition, to establish his own. (3.) The same Prosper does elsewhere say, that Palladius being ordain'd Bishop for the Scots, whilst he studied to preserve the Roman isle, Catholick, he made the Barbarous, Christian. And that our Countrey was called an Isle, is ac∣knowledged by all Writers, after the building of the Wall. But I now farther evince this point by Hadria∣nus Valesius, an Authour much com∣mended by the Doctor himself, who, lib. 3. Rer. Francicar. pag. 144. ad annum 429. has this most clear and unanswerable passage. Sic igitur

Britanniae Provincias quinque quae Ro∣manis paruerant, Angli occupavere. Reliqua Picti Scotique incolebant: Et cum antea ut Prosper docet, pars Britanniae imperio Romano subjecta, Romana Insula, pars à Pictis, & Scotis habitata, barbara Insula appel∣laretur, omnis Britannia barbara In∣sula facta est. With whom agree * 1.25 Petavius & Car. Sigon. de Imper. Oc∣cident. p. 291. So that Dr. Stilling∣fleet does unwarrantably turn this our Argument into an objection. And the matters of Fact narrated, being onely applicable to Scotland, as I have said, and as is clear, by the best Interpreters that must de∣termine the Case betwixt the Irish and Us. (4.) Baronius and the Magdeburgick Centuries make Palla∣dius our First Bishop and the Mission to be to Us: And though they be not allowed by the Doctor to be ab∣solute Judges, yet certainly they must be allow'd to be the best Inter∣preters, and Baronius expresly says, Una omnium cum Prospero est Sen∣tentia, &c. that all others were of this opinion.

The learned Bishop of St. Asaph, and Dr. Stilling sleet, to overturn this undeniable point, have invent∣ed a New Hypothesis of Palladius, having been first sent to Ireland, but that his Mission being unsuccessfull, he came back and died in the Con∣fines of the Picts, and then the same Pope Celestine, sent St. Patrick; which Hypothesis I may now think is fully overturned, since Dr. Stil∣ling fleet answers nothing to the ma∣ny absurdities and inconsistencies which I urged against it; and to which I onely now add that since the Bishop confesses that he dares not deny, that there were several Conversions made before Palladius in Ireland about the Year 400, It is strange that Palladius should have met with so much opposition, as to make him so soon despair, that he returned notwithstanding his Zeal, and St. Patrick posted from France to Rome, and from thence to Ireland within less than a Year: and so Pal∣ladius is onely called the first Bishop in Nomination, and St. Patrick the first in Success. Rare reasoning, rare

despairing, rare posting, and rare distinctions to over-turn the univer∣sal Traditions and Histories of all the Nations concerned! Upon which account the Bishop of St. Asaph * 1.26 doth very ingenuously confess, that this doth not consist well with our Hypothesis, nor with Prosper's own words. And all this is founded up∣on Nennius, as the Doctor † 1.27 acknow∣ledges, and the ‖ 1.28 Bishop of St. Asaph, and yet they confess that he is but a fabulous Authour, and cites Prosper most falsly, saying that Palladius Missus est ad Scotos in Christum con∣vertendos, and upon a Notation of time falsly imputed to Baloeus, which I formerly urged, and is not answer'd. And the Doctor in the forecited 2d. Chapter, p. 53. would have us be∣lieve that Prosper contradicts him∣self in making the Scots to be converted by Palladius, and yet to have been Christians before his time, which are inconsistent. But he knows better things, for there were Christians here before Palladius: for he was sent to be the first Bishop

which presupposes Christians already converted, and a Church ready to be established; and he being sent al∣so to convert us from the Pelagian Heresie, as Baronius Petavius and others observe, it must necessarily follow that we were a Church be∣fore that time, and remarkable too, for having a Heresie (which is an Errour long, and obstinately main∣tain'd) spread amongst us, and con∣sequently we must necessarily have been a Nation long before that time. But all men must be ignorant, and in∣consistent, when they make against the Doctor, and he cannot answer them. And why doth the Doctor lay the stress of this * 1.29 objection up∣on Prosper: if he be such an Au∣thour as is not consistent with him∣self, as the † 1.30 Doctor says? And there∣fore I may be allowed to say that Prosper's Testimony is for us.

I must beg the Doctor's leave to say, That the learned Dr. Hammond differs not from me in the Point here controverted; for I have pro∣ved clearly from him, That we were Christians long before the Year

503. by Dr. Stillingfleet's own Con∣fession, pag. 63. praef. For if we were converted before the Year 503, We were setled before that Year. But so it is, That Dr. Hammond confesses, we were converted before Celestine's time, and that Palladius was sent to our Scotia, and not to Ireland; To which Dr. Stillingfleet makes no solid Answer at all. And where the Doctor says, That I concealed Dr. Hammond's asserting that we received the first Rudi∣ments of the Christian Faith from the Britains, in rejecting the Roman Customs; It is answered, That whe∣ther we received Christianity from the Greek or Romish Church, or whe∣ther our Conversion was rude or perfect, is not here controverted; But whether we received it before Palladius's Mission: And that we were Christians before his time, is clear from Dr. Hammond's own express Words. And though I relate our Conversion by Pope Victor, as the common opinion, yet I am so little tyed to that opinion, That I also, from Beda, relate our Agreement

as to Easter and other Points, with the Greek Church, in contradiction to that of Rome; and from which, Archbishop Spotswood did, before Dr. Hammond, think that our Conver∣sion was from the Grecian Church.

To conclude this whole Point, concerning Palladius, I am sure its very Irreconcileable, that Dr. Stilling∣fleet should acknowledge that the Bi∣shop of St. Asaph mis-cited Baloeus, for proving that Palladius dyed Anno 431. (upon which, his whole Hy∣pothesis depends) and yet that he should positively assert, That the Bishop's onely fault was, that he was too exact in that Hypothesis.

The next Ecclesiastick Authour I did cite was Tertullian, who about the Year 202. says * 1.31 that the Bri∣tish Nations that could not be sub∣dued by the Romans, yet willingly yielded their Necks to the Yoke of Christ. To this the Doctor onely answers, that this must be under∣stood of the Moeatoe and Caledonii. But this is inconsistent with Baroni∣us's applying that passage to us: and that Sense is not so much for the ho∣nour

of the Christian Religion, these being but sub-divisions of a Nation. But since this passage of the Con∣quer'd Nations in Britain, and that I have proved unanswerably by Be∣da, that the Picts and We were these unconquered Nations, it necessarily follows, that this passage is onely applicable to us.

The Doctor answers St. Ierome transiently, applying likewise what is said there of the Scots, to the Scots in Ireland, without giving any special answers to the Citations. But I have so fully refuted this in my Book, that it needs no reply. But if the Reader please, he may likewise consider St. Ierome, where, speaking of Pelagius, he says, * 1.32 His extraction was from the Scotish Nation in the Neighbour∣hood of Britain. And though some contend that Pelagius was a Briton, none ever contended that he was an Irish man, and the Neighbourhood of the Britons cannot be extended so properly to Ireland, as to us. But whether Briton or Scot, yet it is clear from this Citation, as well as from the former, that in Ierome's opinion

there was a Scotish Nation living then in Britain, and that this was the common opinion of the Age, else so good an Authour would not have written so.

To the Citation from Epiphanius, nothing is answered.

I confirmed all these Citations by several reasons, which are not so subject to quibbling as Citations are; for these are founded on common Sense, and therefore the Doctor an∣swers little or nothing unto them. But I hope the Reader will duly weigh them. But how can it be imagined that the Irish would have sent no Colonies to settle, till after the 500. Year of God, they having been time out of mind, ac∣knowledged to have been setled in Ireland, and being a very broody People, and having no Wars (whereas the design of Colonies is to dis-burthen the Nation by fo∣reign Settlements) or that they would not have assumed to them∣selves the Glory and advantage of these Wars? or that the Scots here would have fought for the Picts

above six hundred years together, without setling in the Countrey, which they conquered, contrary to the Custome of all other Nations, who made Incursions? Or how can it be imagined that the Romans would not have resented against the Irish, all their Inrodes, if they had been made from Ireland? Or that the Picts could have subsisted with∣out the Scots, the Romans and Bri∣tons staying all the year within the Isle, and the Scots going home al∣ways in the Winter? Or if they had not been setled among the Picts, till the Saxons were setled among the Britons, how is it imaginable, that the Picts would have invited them to setle then, when they had seen how the Britons were ruined by their Auxiliaries? Or why would the Picts have invited them to setle among them, when the Picts were become more nu∣merous, by the Generations of six hundred years, and after that they themselves were straitned in their Possessions by the Irruptions of the Saxons; a new Nation who had

gained all betwixt the two Walls, which was, in effect, the far better half of what they possest? And since the Scots and Picts were still joyned in all the Actions that were performed, and are spoken of still in the same way, and Phrase, how should we think the one was setled, and the other not? And that no mortal Historian, or other, should have observed this, till Luddu's time? All these reasons supporting one ano∣ther, and joyned to our Citations, should be at least allowed to maintain the Authority of so many Historians and Histories, in possession of belief.

Having thus established my own position, by Authorities and Rea∣sons, I appealed in this difference be∣twixt interested Countries, to the dis-interested Judgment of the great∣est Criticks and Historians, and all whom I have cited are acknowledg∣ed to be on our side, as I have for∣merly cleared in the respective Cita∣tions. To which nothing is an∣swered, but that we must not be∣lieve them (being Modern Writers) in their Improprieties: An answer

indeed, not worthy of so under∣taking an Antiquary. That we must not believe Antiquaries in their own Art, nor dis-interested Authours in differences between interested Na∣tions. But since Scaliger is the one∣ly Critick, who is alledged not to be positive for us, I here insert his own Words. In Tibullum, lib. 4. Te ma∣net invictus? Invictus sane adhuc eo tempore. Nam hactenus ne Caesar quidem illos subjugavit. Primus Cae∣sarum, Claudius de illis triumphavit: Cujus rei amplissimum testimonium ha∣bes in Catalect. meorum lib. 1. nem∣pe Elegantissimos versus à quodam ejus temporis poeta scriptos quos inde petas licet. Sed & Seneca, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, idem testatur in Choricis A∣napoestis, & Coeruleos Scotobrigantes, pro quo ineptissimè hodie editur Scu∣tabrigantas. Quare & Scoti hanc gentis suoe Antiquitatem mihi debent, qui primus illum locum emendavi, quum ipsi hactenus gentis suoe testem Claudiano antiquiorem non haberent.

And in Eusebium n. 20. 60. Et Caerulei Scotobrigantes, ut olim fe∣liciter à nobis emendatum esse asseri∣mus:

adversantur tamen quidam, in quibus boni, malique; docti, indocti; Aiunt Scotos ante tempora senescentis, imperii notos non fuisse. Utinam de∣monstrationem attulissent quâ nobis ju∣gulum peterent. Ante Constantini tempora, inquiunt, notum Scotorum nomen non erat. Acutum sane te∣lum, nisi plumbeum esset. Burgundi∣ones & Longobardi, decrepitâ oetate imperii coeperunt notescere. Qui eo∣rum meminerunt, de vetustissimis Vel∣leius, & Ptolomaeus, extant hodie. Si periissent, ut multi alii, ideo Lon∣gobardos tunc primum, quum in Itali∣am irruperunt, Burgundiones quum Viennensem & secundam Narbonen∣sem occuparunt, esse, & vocari, coepis∣se diceremus—

Qui igitur ex Hiberniâ in Britan∣niam ferocissimi trajecerunt, non esse coeperunt, nisi postquam in Britan∣niâ fuerunt? Quid stultius? Quid in∣eptius? Sed eorum nulla mentio apud Ptolomaeum & Cornelium Tacitum, atqui nec Burgundionum, Longobar∣dorum, Anglorum & Gothorum, apud Plinium, Strabonem, Melam, alios. Quam indignoe sunt hoe veli∣tationes

liberalibus ingeniis?—

Postquam per multum tractum tem∣poris Septentrionalem oram Britanniae excursionibus & latrociniis vexassent, tandem ab Antonino Pio in ordinem redacti, finibus suis sese continuerunt.

From which I argue thus, Scali∣ger there concludes, that we were one of the Nations against whom Claudius fought, and that we were never subdu'd till then. for Claudi∣us never fought against the Irish; and the Scots here spoken of by Sca∣liger, must be those whose antiqui∣ty Scaliger did formerly prove out of Seneca: for he says, * 1.33 the Scots owe to him the Antiquity of their Nation. But so it is, that the Irish living in Ireland, do not owe the An∣tiquity of their Nation to him: for it is not deny'd on either side, that they were much more ancient; and I am sure the Irish were not called Scots, in Scaliger's time. And both this passage of Tibullus, and that of Seneca, joining the Scots to the Bri∣tons, must certainly be interpreted onely of the Scots in Britain, accor∣ding to Usber's own rule.

The passage likewise cited by me out of Eusebius, ad M. M. L. X. does also prove, that Scaliger thought us elder than the declension of the Ro∣man Empire, as is now alledged, for he speaks there of that Nation, of whom he had formerly spoken out of Seneca. But so it is, we were these Scots, and not the Irish: And it was never controverted; but the Irish was a Nation long before that time, as I said formerly: and con∣sequently, Scaliger contemns very justly those Authours, who deny, that we were a Nation before Constan∣tine's time, because no Authours spoke of us till then: For, says he, the Longobards and Burgundians were established Nations long before they were known by these names. And the Nation of which Scaliger speaks, is that Nation Quae trajecit ex Hi∣berniâ in Britanniam: And it were ridiculous to apply this to the Scots in Ireland, or deny that Scaliger thought we setled here while the Roman Empire flourished. Scaliger also there says, that after we had troubled Britain by Incursions, we

were at last forc'd to contain our selves within our own bounds. Which shews, (1.) That we had made Incursions long before Antoni∣nus's time, which was about 100 years after Christ, contrary to what the Bishop of St. Asaph saith. (2.) Antoninus forced us to contain our selves within our own bounds, and therefore we had bounds and mar∣ches of our own, before that time, and so we were setled long before 503. And all this agrees with Eu∣menius and Pacatius, and proves that what they write relates to us. (3.) Pausanias, (whom Scaliger there cites) tells us, that Antoninus took much Land from them; Ergo, they had Land before that time, for that Land could not be in Ireland, for Antoninus never took Land from the Irish. And whoever these Bri∣gantes were, yet Scaliger there makes us the Brigantes, and the question there is onely concerning Scaliger's opinion of us. Nor am I concer∣ned at his calling us Brigantes: for I can prove that Brigantes signifies not Robbers, but Highlanders, from

the word Briga, which signifies an Hill. And I receive kindly the A∣pology made by the Doctor for the Bishop, that his Lordship called us not Robbers, but onely produced a Testimony from Gildas, whom I excuse for abusing us, he being of that Nation which was over-run by us; and probably our spoiling of them might be the Ground of his Quarrel.

The Doctor likewise argues a∣gainst my Citations from Favin and Paulus Aemilius, as speaking onely of an alliance betwixt Achaius and Charles the Great, and nothing as to Fergus, nor the Succession of Kings for 330. years before Christ's Nati∣vity: But, alas! How trivial is this Reflexion! For I never adduced these Authours for proving directly, that part of our History relating to Fergus; but did justly argue, that we must have been setled here much earlier than the Year 503. because a∣bout the Year 790. we were a very considerable Nation, and entered in∣to a League with Charles the Great, which these Authours do fully

prove. And I likewise produced this Citation, to shew how unwarranta∣bly the Bishop of St. Asaph confined us to some few Countries now erect∣ed into the Earldom of Argyle.

As to Sigonius, I shall set down some Citations which formerly I forgot to place on the Margin. But it is strange that the Doctor could not find them, though he uses not to search much for what makes against him, His words are, * 1.34 Eodem anno (qui fuit 360 post Christum) Julianus a∣pud Parisios hibernans, Scotos, Pictós∣que Britannos incursantes audiens, Lupicinum magistrum armorum in Britanniam destinavit. And in ano∣ther place he says, Anno verò Christi 449. Britanni namque à Pictis & Scotis (qui Pictis adjuncti partem Insulae ad Aquilonem tenebant) de∣sperato Romanorum auxilio ad An∣glo-Saxones Germaniae populos confu∣gerunt. From which Citations, it is undeniable that Sigonius thought that we were possest of the Northern part of this Isle before the Year 360. and that at that time we were joyn∣ed with the Picts, in possessing the same.

I cited also Selden's clear Autho∣rity, to which nothing is an∣swered.

And when I said in the first im∣pression of my Book, that all Histo∣rians had own'd our History; I meant all who wrote before Luddus, and Camden, which I still believe to be true. And yet to prevent quibbling, I ordered the expunging of the word [All,] in the second Impression, before I knew of any censures but my own. And now the Doctor produceth onely two, who wrote since their time, and are not of such weight as these cited by me. And if Ubbo Emmius had con∣sidered what I now produce, he had at least acknowledged our History before the Year 503, whereas he does not so much as allow our Hi∣story till after the Year 829, which, even the Bishop of St. Asaph will think ridiculous, and which being after the French League is redar∣gued by unquestionable Proofs, nei∣ther is Boxhornius special, and has been misled by Usher.

Thus, I hope, I have again over∣turned the Bishop of St. Asaph's two chief Positions relating to us, viz. That there were no Scots in Bri∣tain at all, before the Year 300, which is expresly contrary to what is said by Eumenius, Tertullian, La∣tinus, Pacatius, Seneca, Spartan and Beda; and that other Position, viz. That we were onely here by way of Incursion, from the Year 300. till the Year 503. which was all that I did chiefly undertake, and for which, though I needed not to have produced Arguments, but onely answered his Citations, (for according to Dr. Stillingfleet's own Position, a re∣ceived History is not to be over∣turned, but by very convincing Proofs) yet because I found that neither the Bishop nor the Doctor could bring any Proofs to overturn our History, I have likewise pro∣ved, the truth of it as to these Pe∣riods of time, by Authorities which I may modestly say very learned men have thought unanswerable, and which the Doctor's answers (be∣ing so insufficient after the assistance he has got) shew to be so.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 2.
• * 1.2

  Dr. Stillingfl. praef. pag. 23.
• † 1.3

  Cap. 5. p. 285.
• * 1.4

  C. 5. p. 285.
• * 1.5

  Bed. L. c. 14.
• * 1.6

  Verum eadem Britannia Roma∣nis usque ad Cai∣um Julium Cae∣sarem incognita suit.
• * 1.7

  L. 1. c. 5.
• * 1.8

  Page 18.
• † 1.9

  C. 5. p. 285.
• ‖ 1.10

  Pref. p. 60.
• * 1.11

  Brit. Descript. p. 24.
• * 1.12

  C. 18.
• * 1.13

  Utraque gens eam inseder at provinciam quae jam diu Scotia est appellata.
• † 1.14

  C. 19.
• * 1.15

  P. 13. Edit. Iocelia.
• * 1.16

  Hiberni re∣vertuntur do∣mum.
• * 1.17

  P. 21.
• * 1.18

  C. 1. Parag. 5.
• * 1.19

  C. 5. P. 283.
• * 1.20

  Quos sibi Cale∣donia viros sepo∣suerat.
• † 1.21

  Integri & In∣domiti.
• * 1.22

  Indigenae an advecti.
• * 1.23

  Hist. Univers. de reb. gest. reg. Scot.
• * 1.24

  Lib. 1. c. 37. Many evidences we have that Scotland is oft call'd and hecht Hibernia, as Ire∣land doth.
• * 1.25

  Agente palladio Scotorum Episco∣po a Coelestino in Britanniam mis∣so ut Pelagianam haeresin extingue∣ret. Rationar. tempor ad. an. 429.
• * 1.26

  P. 59.
• † 1.27

  C. 2. P. 53.
• ‖ 1.28

  P. 56.
• * 1.29

  P. 68.
• † 1.30

  P. 53.
• * 1.31

  C. 7. contr. Iu∣daeos as it is translated by St. Asaph, praef. p. 8.
• * 1.32

  Habet enim progeniem Scoti∣cae gentis de Bri∣tannorum vici∣nia.
• * 1.33

  Et Scoti hanc genti suae antiqui∣tatem mihi de∣bent.
• * 1.34

  De Occident: Imp. l. 6. p. 141.