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. V.

Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the Name of Bertram, Examin'd.

SEEING that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is a piece of Ratram's, and not of John Scot, we shall not be apt to suppose, as the Author of the Dissertation does, that Berenger or his Disciples first publish'd this Writing under the name of Bertram. And truly it is a hard matter to know the commendations which Hildebert Bishop of Mans, and since Arch Bishop of Tours has given Berenger, and to fall into a suspi∣cion so injurious to the memory of this great man. Hildebert describes Berenger as a person

Cujus cura sequi naturam, legibus uti Et mentem vitiis, ora negare dolis. Virtutes opibus, verum proeponere falso.

A man that follows these Maxims, and those who are taught by him, are far enough from all manner of deceit. I need only then shew that supposing Bertram's Book were John Scot's, the effect would not cease to be near up∣on the same, because John Scot has been a man of great note, and authority in the 9th. Century. But because our Author imagins that the name of Bertram, under which this Book has first appeared, proves clearly that it is not Ratram's, it is fitting before this to consider his Observations,

THE first of which amounts to this, that Sigebert, Trithemius, and * 1.1 Cellot's Anonymous, which are the only Authors who have spoken of Ber∣tram, attribute to him no other works, than those of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and of Predestination, of which, these two first Authors make no mention, in speaking of John Scot, altho it be most certain that John Scot has written two Books on these same subjects; whence he concludes that Bertram is a fictitious Author, which at bottom is no other than John Scot. Thus does the Author of the Dissertation argue.

BUT there is nothing solid in this remark. First, The Book of John Scot of Predestination is dedicated to Hincmar, and Pardulus; whereas Sigebert remarks expresly that that of Bertram, or of Ratram, was dedi∣cated to Charles the Bald, as we see in effect in the Impression of this Book of Ratram, which Mr. Mauguin has publish'd. Secondly, Trithemius con∣firms in two places the Text of Sigebert, altho in another place he says al∣so that Bertram's Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was dedicated to Charles, which Sigebert was silent in. Thirdly, It is false that Cellot's Anonymous had the name of Bertram, he has always Ratram's in the Ma∣nuscript of Corbie; and in the two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor we find that in one place this Anonymous gives for adversaries to Paschasus, Ra∣banus and Intramus, and in the following page Babanus and Ratramnus, nei∣ther in one nor in the other of these two places has the Transcriber the name of Bertram, which would be strange if the Title which this Book has had since the 11th. Century were that of Bertram, and not that of Ratram, as we affirm. Fourthly, It is false that Authors speak but of two

pieces attributed to Bertram: Trithemius says in two places that Bertram * 1.2 wrote several other Books. Fifthly, The silence of the Anonymous is im∣pertinently alledged touching the other works of Bertram, seeing he has not the name of Bertram, and should he have had the name, his drift would not carry him to speak of any other Writing of Bertram, but that of the Eucharist. Sixthly, If Sigebert mention'd not the Book of the Eucharist which John Scot wrote by the order of Charles the Bald, there can be nothing con∣cluded hence unless it may be affirm'd by the same reason, that his other works, as that of Natures, have been attributed to other Authors. Se∣venthly, There is nothing more natural than to say that Trithemius has com∣prehended the Books of Predestination, and of the Eucharist of John Scot, when he says Joannes dictus Erigena scripsit quoedam alia. * 1.3

THE second remark of this Author is, that those who speak of Ber∣tram, * 1.4 do not know him particularly, nor agree about his true name; that Sigebert who in some Manuscript Copies calls him Ratram, does not denote the quality he had, which he is wont to do in speaking of other Authors; that the Abbot Trithemius who speaks of Bertram in three places, could not say in what Diocess, nor in what Monastery he made himself so famous, altho he always made these kind of remarks in speaking of th' Illustrious men of the order of S. Bennet, so that there's reason to believe that he too lightly made the Elogium of Bertram, whose works were apparently un∣known to him; in fine, that the Anonymous who designs the other Au∣thors by their qualities, as Raban, Heribold, Paschasus, Egilon speaks of Ratram as of an unknown person, Ratramnus quidam, denoting that he knew nothing of him, but that his name was Ratram, or Intram, as speak the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor.

BUT our Author is mistaken in his suppositions. First, It is not true Sigebert gives constantly to the Writers, of which he speaks, the Ecclesia∣stical qualifications they had, the contrary appears from the 84. 91. 93. 94. 103. and other Chapters of his Catalogue. Secondly, I know not what Trithemius was wont to do in his second Book of Writers of the Order of S. Bennet, I never saw this work. Yet the little certainty which I found in the judgment of our Author, on the custom of Sigebert, makes me be∣lieve that he has not judged better of that of Trithemius. In the main, I am not greatly solicitous whether Trithemius has seen, or not seen the Wri∣tings which he attributes to Bertram. Yet I cannot but observe here the va∣nity * 1.5 of mens judgments. In 1652. the Elogies which Trithemius gives to Bertram, oblige Mr. Herman to believe, that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, is the most Orthodox piece in the world. And in 1669. these same commendations which Trithemius gives to Bertram, oblige the Author of the Dissertation to affirm that Trithemius never read it, and so prais'd Bertram without any consideration. Thirdly, It seems to me that the manner after which Cellot's Anonymous has treated Ratram, not know∣ing him, but by his Book, makes him not an Author unknown to others. For supposing Ratram were entirely unknown to this Anonymous, who li∣ved in the 12th. Century, we know that Florus the famous Deacon of the * 1.6 Church of Lyons was likewise treated no better than a quidam by the Histo∣rians of the 12th. and 13th. Century, and Paschasus himself was so little known by Gaudefredus the Monk of Claravod, at the end of the 12th. Cen∣tury, that Gaudefredus confounds him with Paschasus Deacon of the Roman Church, who lived about the year 500. Amalarius was very famous in the

9th. Century, and well known by Lewis the Debonnair, by whose order he * 1.7 wrote. The Transcribers have corrupted his name in the Catalogue of Si∣gebert, and turned it into Attularius; Trithemius speaks of him in his Cata∣logue under the name of Hamularius, and after an hundred Disputes he re∣mains still in a manner unknown. Fourthly, It is surprizing enough to see the Author of the Dissertation attributing to the Authors themselves the faults of the Transcribers, who have written the name of Ratram. He tells us that Sigebert gives to Bertram the name of Ratram in some Manuscript Copies, that Trithemius speaks of him under three different names, of Ber∣tram, of Bertramnus, and of Bertrannus, that the Anonymous Author calls him Ratramnus, or Intram: I know not whether he speaks in good earnest, or to deride us: But if he speaks seriously that those who according to his supposition changed the Title of the Book of John Scot, made it pass on purpose under these different names in different Copies 'twould have been good before a conjecture of this kind was offered, to undertake the con∣firming of this discovery by the Authority of some Manuscripts of the Body and Blood of our Lord, wherein might be seen these different names.

THE last mark of the supposition which the Author of the Disserta∣tion * 1.8 offers is, that if we will not acknowledg Bertram for a feign'd Author, and the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord for the work of John Scot, we shall find our selves forced to admit such strange consequences, and which approach so near to impossibilities, that the like cannot be parallel'd by all Antiquity.

BUT we need only to run thro the principal difficulties which our Au∣thor proposes to find that all this is nothing. First, It is not an absurdity to pretend that in the 9th. Century there were two Authors, one named John Scot, known of all the world for the Author of the first Translation of the Hierarchy of the feign'd Denys into Latin: The other called Ratramnus, whose name thro the ignorance of Transcribers, was corrupted into that of Bertram, or Bertramnus, or Bertran, as that of Amalarius has been into At∣tularius, that of Aimoinus into Aumoinus, Ammonius and Annonius, under which this Author was first publish'd at Paris in the year 1514. Secondly, Neither is it any more an absurdity to say they were both of 'em adversaries to Paschasus, not sercet, as our Author affirms, but open ones, in writing against his Doctrin. The Anonymous Author mentions several adversaries of Paschasus, as Raban and Ratramnus. Thirdly, It is not so monstrous an impossibility to maintain that Ratramnus and John Scot wrote both of 'em on the subject of the Eucharist, and on Predestination: There were in their times two Disputes on these subjects, and in effect we have their two Treatises of Predestination, publish'd by Mr. Mauguin. We know that in the 11th. Century the Popes burnt John Scot's on the Eucharist, and with∣out doubt their partisans who suppressed all Berenger's Books, and those of his Disciples, have likewise exterminated with the greatest care the Copies of that of John Scot. By good hap that of Ratramnus, who is mention'd in the 12th. Century, as an adversary to Paschasus, is yet extant, under the corrupted name of Bertram. Fourthly, Neither is there any absurdity to conceive that the Writings of these two Authors touching the Eucharist have been, the one dedicated to King Charles the Bald, and the other com∣posed by his Order. Ratramnus and John Scot were both of 'em particularly known and esteem'd by this Prince. Ratramnus has written by his Order the Book of Predestination, and John Scot in obedience to his Commands has

translated the Hierarchy of the pretended Denys, and was always greatly esteem'd by him. Fifthly, It is not absurd to believe that John Scot was oblig'd to write on the same subject as Ratramnus; their judgment was so considerable in their time, that Hincmar and Pardulus, two famous Bishops, oblig'd John Scot to write on Predestination, and an Assembly of Bishops oblig'd Ratramnus to write against the objections of the Greeks, which Pope Nicholas had sent them. Sixthly, It is an imaginary difficulty to say they have both of 'em had the fancy to give to Charles the Bald, the Title of Charlemain. I have shewed that they have not done it; but that Berenger has been mistaken in explaining this Title Ad Carolum Regem: and that it is very possible those who Printed the Book of Bertram have understood this Title as Berenger did in a like subject, and in the same dispute. Seventh∣ly, It is not an impossibility for two Books of the Body and Blood to con∣tain each of 'em but one Book of a very indifferent size. Eighthly, There is no more difficulty to believe that two Writers who treat on the same sub∣ject have used the same Witnesses, the same Orison which was said every day in the Service, than that they have drawn the same conclusions, and in terms perhaps not absolutely the same, but very near one another. Paschasus brag∣ged in his Letter to Frudegard, that this Orison was made for him, which caused all his Adversaries to examin it, and urge the proper terms of it against him, without changing any thing therein. Neither do I any more believe that after what I have represented of the genius of these Authors, any bo∣dy will imagin they were both of 'em equally addicted to Aristotle's Philo∣sophy, and were both wont to illustrate the mysteries of Religion by Argu∣ments put in form, by Enthymemes, by Maxims and Principles drawn from Philosophy: I have shew'd the difference which there is between the genius of Bertram and that of John Scot. Tenthly, It is equally false that neither of 'em dared to discover their minds touching the Real Presence. Our Au∣thor himself will have Bertram's Book to be John Scot's, and John Scot's Book was burn'd in a full Council, because it opposes it. Eleventhly, There is no great matter of wonder that after the question was moved, and the Book of John Scot burn'd, there should be more diligent search made after the Books which respected a Dispute touching which Berenger maintain'd that Paschasus gave the occasion by his novelties, and thus the Book of Ra∣tram has appear'd since that of John Scot has disappear'd.

IN fine, twelfthly, There are no rational people that will be perplexed with this imaginary difficulty of the Author of the Dissertation, to wit, that of one of these Authors, which is Bertram, there should remain nothing that is certain to posterity, neither in respect of his quality, nor his name, altho his Book has remain'd, and that the quality of the other, to wit, John Scot, should be well known, altho his Book be lost. It is apparent enough who Ratramnus was, and that Bertram is but a name corrupted thro the ignorance of the Transcribers. But what I now represented is sufficient to dissipate the illusion, which the name of Bertram had produced, and all reasonable people will be fully convinced that Ratram is the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and not John Scot. We have only then to shew that the authority of this Book will be of no less weight, sup∣posing John Scot were the Author of it. For which purpose I have design'd the second part of this Answer.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Dissert. Art. 3. sect. 3.
• * 1.2

  De Script. Eccl. fol. 57. & in chron. Hirsaug.
• * 1.3

  Ibidem.
• * 1.4

  Dissert. ibid.
• * 1.5

  Hieron. ab ang. Forti Epist. 3. p. 63.
• * 1.6

  Guil. Malmsb. A. 883. Sim. Dunelm, p. 148. Math. Westm. ann. 889. apud Baron. A. 1118. sect. 29.
• * 1.7

  See Labb. of Writ Eccles. in Amalar.
• * 1.8

  Ibidem.