observe, and that as Ascelin relates, that John Scot cited this Orison un∣der the name of S. Gregory, whereas Bertram cites it as the common Service of the Church, and that how great soever the conformity has been between the conclusion of these Authors in respect of the sense and words, it is not so great in respect of the construction of 'em. Bertram having these words, In specie geruntur ista non in veritate, and John Scot these, Specie geruntur ista non in veritate, which proves that these are two different Authors.
THE second witness which our Author produces is Berenger, who in∣forms us that the Book of John Scot was wrote at the intreaty of a King of France, and that this King was Charlemain. Our Author pretends that these two particulars are to be met with in the Book of Bertram, which is dedi∣cated to Charlemain, and was written by his order.
BUT these conformities conclude nothing; not the first, because 'twas very possible that Charles the Bald had at the same time obliged two learned men to write on the same subject; one who dwelt in his Palace, to wit, John Scot, and the other whose name was so illustrious in his Kingdom, that he had already oblig'd him to write on the questions of Predestination, to wit, Ratramnus. This Character is too general. Not the second, for it does not seem that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood, nor that of John Scot of the Eucharist, were inscribed, Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem, but only, Ad Carolum Regem, which is what one may recollect from Si∣gebert, from the Abbot Trithemius, from John Bishop of Rochester, and the Censurers of Doway, in reference to the Book of Bertram, whose Author they place under the time of Lothairius, and Charles the Bald, altho the Book of Bertram has no mark of time, whereas without doubt they would have placed him under the Reign of Charlemain, had the Manuscripts for title, Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem. And for that of John Scot, it is to be believ'd that it having been written at the same time, and having an Inscription almost alike, Berenger is mistaken in applying to Charlemain what ought to be referred to Charles the Bald. At least 'tis by a mistake of this nature that Sigebert has placed Ʋsuard and Hincmar under the Reign of Charlemain; wherein Sigebert has been follow'd by Trithemius, altho both one and the other have written under Charles the Bald, as all the world acknowledges in respect of Hincmar, and as Bollandus and Labbeus acknow∣ledg in respect of Ʋsuard.
BUT supposing that the Book of John Scot was inscrib'd Ad Carolum Magnum Imperatorem, as is at this day that of Bertram in the Impressions, how will it hence follow that these two Books are but one and the same? Because, says our Author, if we suppose that this Title is equally false, 'tis ve∣ry difficult for chance to produce the same falsity in two different Books, which in other respects had so great resemblance. And if it be pretended that the Ti∣tle is true, it will be moreover very strange for the fancy of two different per∣sons to meet in giving it this Title.
THIS difficulty is a small one, we do not say that Ratram and John Scot have given the Title of Charlemain to Charles the Bald, but affirm it not to be so strange a thing, that Berenger having attributed to Charlemain what ought to be apply'd to Charles the Bald, those that came after should refer to Charlemain a like Title, this Prince passing for a lover of Theological learning, as having been the restorer of it: The examples which I alledged