The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.

CHAP. II.

That what the Author of the Dissertation would reform in the Opinion of Mr. De Marca, does not at all make it the more probable.

THAT which the Author of the Dissertation has changed in the conjecture of Monsieur De Marca, to make it a little more toler∣able, may be reduced to these three things. First, He will have the supposition of this Book to be made, not by John Scot himself in the 9th. Century, as Mr. De Marca says, but by Berenger, or those of his Party towards the end of the 11th. Secondly, He pretends that in respect of the Title, the supposition has not been made barely under the name of Ratram; but that those who have made the change have made the Book pass under the name of Bertram, or that of Bertramnus, or under that of Ratram, or Intram, or Ratramnus, or perhaps under several of these different names, but indiffe∣rent Copies. Thirdly, He will have it to be in respect of the sense of the Book but an obscure and perplex'd piece, whereas Mr. De. Marca openly acknow∣ledges it to be heretical, incapable of a good explication, and justly censured.

BUT we cannot conceive how Mr. De Marca's conjecture will appear more probable by these new corrections. In effect if it be unjust in Mr. De Marca to accuse without proof, witnesses, or ground, and even without any probability John Scot of an imposture so great as this is, what judgment must we make of the accusation which Mr. Arnaud brings under the name of the Author of the Dissertation, against Berenger or his followers? Who has revealed to him the mystery of this supposition which he so historically deals out to us? Where are the Adversaries of Berenger who have re∣proached him with this deceit, or those of his Party? Where are the Ma∣nuscripts which help him to this discovery? 'Tis apparent there needs a great stock of confidence to form accusations of this consequence without any proof. For my part I may accuse the Disciples of Paschasus with more likeli∣hood for having attributed their Masters Books to names of far greater re∣nown than his. Whilst I write this, I have before me the Treatise of the Perpetual Virginity of the Holy Virgin, of which in fine we know Paschasus to be the Author. Yet has this Book passed hitherto for S. Hildephonsus's, Arch-Bishop of Toledo; and in a Manuscript which I have by me, it appears that this supposition is made designedly by a Priest of the 10th. Century,

named Gomezan, who pretends that this Book was brought from Spain by a Bishop called Gotiscalc: and this good man has carried on the supposition so far as to corrupt the Catalogue of S. Hildephonsus his works, by inserting in 'em these words which are to be found in the Edition of Miroeus as well as in the Manuscript. He wrote—a little Book of the Virginity of the Holy Vir∣gin, against three Infidels. We know likewise that Paschasus his Book touch∣ing the Eucharist, was father'd on the famous Raban, as appears from the Cologn Edition in 1551. and from the Manuscripts of which the Author of the Dissertation says he has another of 'em in his hands; altho it be certain that Paschasus is the Author of this Book, and that Raban was of a con∣trary opinion to Paschasus. But without such appearance, and without any ground, proof, or Witnesses, we must be gravely told, that Berenger or his Disciples, who were not convinced nor accused of any such thing, have fa∣thered on Bertram the Book which was condemned at Verseil and Rome, and which is in effect John Scots, and that six hundred years after we must be informed of this pretended supposition, which no body before ever imagin'd: what is this but imposing on the Readers credulity.

THE second change which the Author of the Dissertation makes of Mr. De Marca's sentiment is a mere cavil that has no foundation, as I shall shew hereafter. In effect Mr. De Marca as well before as since his new conjecture, has acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same.

AND as to what that Author imagins in the third place that Mr. De Marca was mistaken in his maintaining that Bertram's Book is plainly against Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence; whereas it ought only to pass for an obscure and perplex'd Writing, 'tis evident this was to save the Author of the Perpetuity's reputation. In effect if he had not this con∣sideration, how could he content himself with barely treating this Book as obscure and perplex'd, seeing he himself supposes that 'tis John Scots? First, Does he not know that Scot's Book was condemned by the Synod of Verceil as an Heretical piece. Secondly, That 'twas so before at Paris by a kind * 1.1 of Synod who censured it in the same terms. Thirdly, That another Coun∣cil at Rome caused it to be burnt six years after the Council of Verceil. Fourthly, That John Scot's Book was composed on this platform, That the Sacrament of the Altar is not the true Body nor true Blood of our Lord, but only a memorial of his true Body and Blood, as Hincmar and Ascelin say. Fifthly, That Berenger has taken the Book of John Scot for an authentick testimony of his Faith, and Lanfranc also for an avowed adversary of Pas∣chasus. Sixthly, That in the 12th. Century Cellot's anonymous Author te∣stifies the Author of this Book was respected as an adversary to Paschasus, in the same manner as he had been in the preceding Century. Seventhly, That supposing Bertram's Book be John Scot's, whatsoever I now mention'd must be referred to him. Eighthly, That in effect Bertram's Book was attri∣buted to Oecolampadius. Ninthly, That it was proscribed by I know not how many expurgatory Indexes. Tenthly, That the Divines of Doway and others with 'em, not being able to admit the Doctrin, have affirm'd it has been altered. In fine, that the Author of the Dissertation himself ac∣knowledges that Berenger or his Disciples considered this Book as a Buck∣ler for 'em, which 'twas their interest to preserve at the expence of the great∣est fraud and treachery.

DARE the Author of the Dissertation say that Hincmar has understood

the sentiment of John Scot better than John Scot himself, that the Councils of the 11th. Century have rashly condemned a Writing which at most was but an obscure and perplex'd one? That Pope Leo IX. Nicholas II. and the 113 Bishops which constrained Berenger to burn John Scot's Book were de∣ceived in it, that Berenger nor his Adversaries, nor his Disciples, have not comprehended what made for 'em or against 'em during several years Dis∣pute, and that in fine the 12th. Century remain'd in as great an ignorance? I wonder how the Author of the Dissertation, or Mr. Arnaud can speak of this Book as they do; which is to say, that it is obscure and perplexed, in supposing John Scot to be the Author of it. I can scarcely believe that if these Gentlemen do satisfie themselves, they can also satisfie the ingenuous of their own party that have read it. But that I may handle more fully this point, I intend to establish clearly two things, First, That this Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram, is in effect Ratram's, and not John Scot's. Secondly, That the authority of this Book will not cease to be very considerable, supposing John Scot were the Author of it. I hope I shall commodiously reduce under these two heads, whatsoever the Author has treated of greatest importance in his Dissertation.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Durand. Troar. de Corp. & Sang. Chr. part 9. De Praedest. cap. 31. Epist. ad Berenger. in Lanf. oper.